Transformational Creativity: Learning for a Better Future 3031515897, 9783031515897

Table of contents :
Preface
Transformational Creativity
Contents
Notes on Contributors
List of Figures
List of Tables
Chapter 1: Why Transformational Creativity?
Why Malignant Creativity is Spreading at an Alarming Rate
The Transformational Creativity Alternative
References
Chapter 2: Varieties of Transformational and Transactional Creativity
Creativity as of a Single Type or of Multiple Types
Creativity as of a Single Type
Creativity as of Multiple Types
Multiple Types Primarily as a Result of Types of Efforts
Multiple Types Primarily as a Result of Creative Impact
Transactional and Transformational Creativity
Basic Idea
A Taxonomy of Types of Transactional and Transformational Creativity
Types of Transactional Creativity
Transactional Creativity
Pseudo-transactional Creativity Type I
Pseudo-Transactional Creativity Type II
Pseudo-Transactional Creativity Type III
Types of Transformational Creativity
Pseudo-transformational Creativity Type I
Pseudo-transformational Creativity Type II
Pseudo-transformational Creativity Type III
Conclusion
References
Chapter 3: Teaching for Transformational Creativity: Fostering a Principled Approach to Creative Action
A Principled Approach to Creative Action
Creative Catalysts
Creative Agency Beliefs
Agentic Decisions
Creative Consequences
Implications for Teaching Transformational Creativity
Conclusion
References
Chapter 4: A Life Story Perspective on the Nexus of Creativity and Wisdom
Transformational Creativity: A Marriage of Wisdom and Creativity
Reflecting on One’s Life Story: Remembering Transactional vs. Transformational Creativity
Reflecting on One’s Life Story: Transactional Creativity as Legacy
Reflecting on One’s Life Story: Transformational Creativity as Legacy
Charting the Life Story Ahead: Transformational Creativity in Young Adulthood
Conclusion
References
Chapter 5: Future-Oriented Thinking: The Creativity Connection
Introduction
Future-Oriented Thinking: Creativity in the Service of Sustainability
Creative Co-opetition to Reach a Common Goal: The Future of Cereals Production
Prospective Ergonomics and Creativity: Supporting a Projection Toward Greener Practices
The Use of Emergent Technology to Promote Creative Future-Oriented Thinking
Discussion and Conclusion
References
Chapter 6: Concerned Creativity to Counteract Concerning Creativity
Concerned Creativity to Counteract Concerning Creativity
Purpose
Going Beyond the Individual in Creativity
The Three Cs Conception of Creativity
C1: Creative Competence
C2: Commitment to the Creative Task
C3: Concern for Others
Empathy
Compassion
Prosocial Behavior
Teaching for Transformational Creativity
Session 1: Exploring Creativity
Session 2: Creative Mindsets
Session 3: Artistic Creativity
Session 4: Creative Problem Solving (Part 1)
Session 5: Creative Problem Solving (Part 2)
Session 6: Designing
Sessions 7–9: Creative Expression: Musical, Kinesthetic, and Synchronization
Session 10: Mathematical Creativity
Session 11: Concerned Creativity
Teaching Approach
Conclusion
References
Chapter 7: Deploying Creativity for Good: How Engineers Solve Worthy Problems
Benevolent Creativity
Creativity in the Twenty-First Century
A Dark Side to Creativity?
Towards Positive, Transformational Creativity: From What and How, to When and Why
External Conditional Factors as Drivers of Creativity
Developing Creativity in Engineers
Worthy Problems and Worthy Solutions
Summary
References
Chapter 8: Nurturing Changemakers: Harnessing the Power of Service-Learning Pedagogy for Transformational Creativity
Transformational Creativity
Service-Learning Pedagogy
Four Key Components for Successful Service Learning
Time-Intensive, But Worth It?
Developmental Service-Learning Typology
Service-Learning Pedagogy for Transformational Creativity
Nurturing Transformational Creativity Through Community Service
Example 1
Example 2
Nurturing Transformational Creativity Through Community Exploration
Example 1
Example 2
Nurturing Transformational Creativity Through Community Action
Example 1
Example 2
Conclusion
References
Chapter 9: Creatively and Critically Challenging Assumptions
Transformational Creativity
Making and Challenging Assumptions
Creativity
Critical Thinking
Creative and Critical Thinking: Two Phases of Creation
Creative and Critical Thinking in Education
A Demon-Haunted World Revisited
Summary
References
Chapter 10: The Transformational Potential of Hidden Creativity
Tackling Misperceptions and Myths
Increasing Insight and Understanding
Engaging With Others and With Society
Looking Forward
References
Chapter 11: Transformational Creativity in Education
How to Build Transformational Creativity in Education
Building Transformational Creativity in Secondary School Students
School Climate and the Need for New Ideas
Secondary School Students Bring Change
Building Transformational Creativity Through Teacher Education
Transformational Creative Agency in Teaching
Beliefs, Affect, and Attitudes
Creative Thinking and Metacognition
Creative Behaviors and Practices
A Real-World Teacher Example from the makeSPACE Program
Future Directions for Research on Transformational Creativity in Education
References
Chapter 12: Holistic Wisdom Education: Towards Transformational Creativity
Understanding Totality of Human Nature: Philosophical Background
Wisdom: Multiple Perspectives, Ethics, and Pedagogies
Creative Mind and Its Capacity for Transformation
Holistic Pedagogy to Transformational Creativity
Holistic Education
Initial Findings: Appearance of Transformative Creativity in Finnish Preschool Education in a Forest Environment
Adult Self-education as a Form of Holistic Pedagogy
Final Conclusions
References
Chapter 13: Transforming Behavioral Science, Creatively
Some Bad Apples
Is this AMORAL?
All Roads (Should) Lead to the Common Good
Concluding Remarks and Future Work
References
Chapter 14: How to Transform Teaching for Creativity Programs to Teaching for Transformational Creativity
Creativity and Creativity Trainings
Divergent Thinking Training
Creative Problem-Solving Training
Creativity Is not Enough
Transformational Creativity
Promoting Transformational Creativity
Including Lectures on Wisdom
Case Studies
Integrating Care and Ethics into Creativity Training Programs
Perspective Learning Practices
Integrating Community Service Learning in CT
Conclusion
References
Chapter 15: Social Innovation: Creativity in the Transformation of Day-to-Day Life
Expertise
Case Illustration
Study Findings
Problem Definition
Case Illustration
Study Findings
Causal Analysis
Case Illustration
Study Findings
Forecasting
Case Illustration
Study Findings
Constraint Analysis
Case Illustration
Study Findings
Planning
Case Illustration
Study Findings
Wisdom
Case Illustration
Study Findings
Conclusion
References
Chapter 16: Implementing Transformational Creativity in Higher Education
Definitions
Transformational Creativity in Higher Education
The Tec21 Model
Restructuring the University Schedule
An Example of a Concentration
Effectiveness of the Model
The Attitude-First Model
Lessons Learned Thus Far
References
Chapter 17: Think Globally, Create Locally
Cognitive Transformations
Moral Creativity
Creative Problem Finding
Ego Strength and Tolerance
Discussion
References
Chapter 18: Transformational Creative Genius: Four Wise Considerations of Three Definitions
Three Definitions
Genius
Creative Genius
Transformational Creative Genius
Comparisons
Precautions
Four Wise Considerations
Conclusion
References
Chapter 19: Reality Capture: Why We Need Transformational Creativity More than Ever Before
What Are the Features of Reality Capture?
How and Why Has Reality Capture Changed
How Are People Especially Susceptible to Reality Capture Today?
Inequality
Ideological Rigidity
Entrenchment
Need to Belong
Social Pressure
Shame
Financial Costs
Entrenched Beliefs About Reality Are Hard to Change
The Role of Transformational Creativity in Preventing and Combating Reality Capture
Conclusion
References
Chapter 20: 99 Shades of Gray: A Newish Look at Light, Dark, and Other Value Judgments of Creativity
The Problem
The Problem
Is There an Absolute Standard?
Conclusion
References
Index

Citation preview

Transformational Creativity Learning for a Better Future

Edited by  Robert J. Sternberg · Sareh Karami

Transformational Creativity

Robert J. Sternberg  •  Sareh Karami Editors

Transformational Creativity Learning for a Better Future

Editors Robert J. Sternberg Department of Psychology, College of Human Ecology Cornell University Ithaca, NY, USA

Sareh Karami Mississippi State University Starkville, MS, USA

ISBN 978-3-031-51589-7    ISBN 978-3-031-51590-3 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-51590-3 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2024 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Cover credit: phototechno/Getty Images This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG. The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland Paper in this product is recyclable.

The editors dedicate this book to inspirations for their efforts at transformational creativity, their families: Robert J. Sternberg, to his wife Karin and children, Seth, Sara (Greene), Samuel, Brittany, Melody, and in memoriam, Julian and Justin; Sareh Karami, to her husband Mehdi Ghahremani, her daughter Hannah Termeh Ghahremani, and her parents Ensiyeh Rahnama, and Nasrollah Karami.

Preface

Transformational Creativity Creativity—the production of ideas that are both novel and useful or effective—has brought the world Leonardo’s Mona Lisa, Rodin’s The Thinker, Hugo’s Les Misérables, Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony, the printing press, the cell phone, the airplane, the Eiffel Tower, and the United States Constitution (and the constitutions of other countries as well). It would be hard to overstate the importance of creativity to the cultural evolution of humankind. And yet … creativity also has brought us Riefenstahl’s Triumph of the Will (a Nazi propaganda film), the hydrogen bomb, untraceable 3-D printed guns, killer drones, carefully designed gambling casinos that keep people gambling long after they should have walked out, heroin, cigarette advertisements, and factories, creating industrial products, that dumped toxic waste into public bodies of water. By the mid-1980s, it was already clear to creativity researchers that creativity had a dark side. There had been the threats of nuclear devastation; Nazi, Communist, and in the U.S., McCarthyite propaganda; and drugs such as thalidomide, brought to market with great fanfare only to be found to be highly toxic, in this case, to the unborn. But all that was before the Age of the Internet. Today we live in an Age of the Internet. It is not clear where the enormous creativity that has gone into the development of the software for its construction and maintenance, and the hardware that allows it, will bring us. The Internet has brought us many advantages in terms of availability of information and retrievability even of obscure facts. But will social media mean the end of democracy? Will people become like laboratory animals, responding to clickbait in much the way white rats respond to sugar pellets? Will terrorists use the Dark Web to plot the overthrow of stable governments? Are they already doing so? Will new designer drugs ever designed to elude regulations lead more and more people to become like the opium smokers of times past? Recognizing that creativity has dark as well as light sides, some investigators of creativity have begun to study this dark side of creativity as well as its lighter sides. vii

viii

Preface

Scholars have realized that what matters most for the future of humanity is not creativity in itself, but rather, how creativity is deployed—for positive or negative ends. The editors of this proposed book are among those who believe that there is a need for scholars and practitioners to go beyond yet another compendium on creativity. We recognize that merely teaching for creativity, intelligence, or for critical thinking, for that matter, is not adequate to meet the challenges of the third decade of the twenty-first century—or for the decades going forward. Rather, we need to focus on how creativity can be harnessed and then deployed to serve humanity (and other living things) in a world of unpredicted and often unpredictable challenges. Transformational creativity is creativity that makes the world a better place— that makes a positive, meaningful, and potentially enduring difference to the world. It is the combination of creativity and wisdom—creativity used toward a common good. The concept, introduced by Robert J. Sternberg in 2021, represents an extension of work on positive creativity. It is different from positive creativity in that what is “positive” to one group or in one time or place may be indifferent or even negative in another. Transformational creativity, at least in theory, takes into account the needs of humanity, broadly conceived. Our goal in this volume was to invite leading scholars in psychology and education, especially with an interest in the field of creativity, to contribute to a volume that invited the scholars to share their best thinking on how creativity can be conceived of, taught for, and deployed to serve rather than undermine humanity. The book is written for anyone interested in creativity in service of making the world better. It might seem sad that there even would be a need for this kind of book, but such is the world we live in today, where anti-vaxxers and anti-maskers, for example, are deploying their creativity to the maximum in ways that have destroyed and will continue to destroy hundreds of thousands of lives; where scamsters are selling fake COVID-19 vaccines to turn a profit; and where politicians are cynically discouraging some people from protecting themselves and others in order to appeal to a deceived and sometimes less than critically reflective base of supporters. If we need more books, it is perhaps not so much on creativity, per se, but rather on creativity in the service of humanity. And that is this book! Ithaca, NY, USA Mississippi State, MS, USA  August 2023

Robert J. Sternberg Sareh Karami

Contents

1

Why Transformational Creativity?��������������������������������������������������������    1 Robert J. Sternberg and Sareh Karami

2

 Varieties of Transformational and Transactional Creativity ��������������   15 Robert J. Sternberg

3

 Teaching for Transformational Creativity: Fostering a Principled Approach to Creative Action������������������������������������������������������������������   29 Ronald A. Beghetto

4

 Life Story Perspective on the Nexus of Creativity and Wisdom������   43 A Susan Bluck and Kiana Cogdill-Richardson

5

Future-Oriented Thinking: The Creativity Connection����������������������   59 Samira Bourgeois-Bougrine, Saphia Richou, Marie Chizallet, and Todd Lubart

6

 Concerned Creativity to Counteract Concerning Creativity��������������   73 Aakash A. Chowkase, Kshama R. Datar, and Abhishek M. Dedhe

7

 Deploying Creativity for Good: How Engineers Solve Worthy Problems ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   89 David H. Cropley

8

Nurturing Changemakers: Harnessing the Power of Service-Learning Pedagogy for Transformational Creativity��������������  103 Ophélie A. Desmet

9

 Creatively and Critically Challenging Assumptions����������������������������  121 Gregory J. Feist

10 The  Transformational Potential of Hidden Creativity ������������������������  135 Vlad P. Glăveanu, Adam E. Green, and James C. Kaufman 11 Transformational  Creativity in Education��������������������������������������������  149 Zorana Ivcevic, Ross C. Anderson, and Jessica D. Hoffmann ix

x

Contents

12 Holistic  Wisdom Education: Towards Transformational Creativity ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  169 Eeva K. Kallio, Laura Mononen, and Terhi Ek 13 Transforming  Behavioral Science, Creatively ��������������������������������������  183 Hansika Kapoor and Anirudh Tagat 14 How  to Transform Teaching for Creativity Programs to Teaching for Transformational Creativity ������������������������������������������������������������  197 Sareh Karami 15 Social  Innovation: Creativity in the Transformation of Day-to-Day Life������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  211 Michael D. Mumford and Tanner R. Newbold 16 Implementing  Transformational Creativity in Higher Education������  231 Jonathan A. Plucker and Rafaela Diegoli 17 Think  Globally, Create Locally��������������������������������������������������������������  245 Mark A. Runco 18 Transformational  Creative Genius: Four Wise Considerations of Three Definitions����������������������������������������������������������������������������������  255 Dean Keith Simonton 19 Reality  Capture: Why We Need Transformational Creativity More than Ever Before����������������������������������������������������������������������������  267 Robert J. Sternberg 20 99  Shades of Gray: A Newish Look at Light, Dark, and Other Value Judgments of Creativity����������������������������������������������������������������  283 Robert J. Sternberg

Index������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  293

Notes on Contributors

Ross C. Anderson  is co-founder of Creative Engagement Lab and associate scientist at Oregon Research Institute. He has led a $20 million funded program, including the ArtCore (www.artcorelearning.org/), the makeSPACE (www.makespaceproject.org), and the My STEM Story projects focused on professional development and classroom programming to enhance creativity and motivation in K-12 teaching and learning. Ronald  A.  Beghetto  is an internationally recognized expert on creative thought and action in educational settings. He holds the Pinnacle West Presidential Chair at Arizona State University and is a Fellow of the American Psychological Association. He has been named one of the Top 200 University-Based Scholars in Education by Education Week. Susan Bluck  is Professor and Director of the Life Story Lab at the University of Florida. Her research is grounded in a functional, ecological life story approach. She is a lifespan developmentalist with an emphasis on adult development and aging and has contributed both theoretically and empirically to the wisdom literature. Her program of research examines ways individuals use memories of life’s experiences (i.e., remembering, autobiographical reasoning, life stories) to serve adaptive psychosocial functions such as maintaining self-continuity, developing empathy in relationships, and directing future behavior. She also collaborates with health professionals involved in palliative care to examine the last chapter of the life story—how and why people recall death-related events. Samira Bourgeois-Bougrine  is Associate professor of psychology and ergonomics at University Paris Cité. For the last 13 years, her research focused on analyses of best practices in creative problem solving based on in-depth analyses of responses to interviews and activity traces of engineers and writers. Her current work focuses on (1) the exploration of prospective scenarios in virtual reality environment, (2) ways to enhance creative problem solving in educational settings, through pedagogies that seek to improve specific aspects of the creative process, (3) the implication of creativity in safety and (4) the management of participatory innovation during the COVID-19 crisis. She coordinated several national and international grants and contracts over the last 25 years and has 233 publications including articles in international journals, books and book chapters, national and international conferences, and scientific reports to her credit. She is a member of (1) the jury of “Knowledge and Cultures Commission” of the CNC (the National Centre for Cinema and the Moving Image) and (2) member of the European Story Think Tank created by Le Groupe Ouest (European film lab). She is section Editor for “The Palgrave Encyclopedia of the Possible” and provides expertise for eight international peer review journals. Marie  Chizallet  is Associate Professor of Ergonomics at Université Paris Cité’s Applied Psychology and Ergonomics Laboratory. She completed her PhD in ergonomics at the National Conservatory of Arts and Crafts (Paris) in 2019 entitled “Understanding the design process of a xi

xii

Notes on Contributors

work system in the indivisibility of time: the case of farmers in agroecological transition”. She is co-responsible for the “Design for Sustainable Development” committee within the Association for Research in Ergonomic Psychology and Ergonomics in France (ARPEGE). Her research focuses on ergonomics and design in a variety of fields, with a particular emphasis on sustainable development and transition support. Aakash A. Chowkase  is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the University of California, Berkeley. He earned his PhD in Gifted, Creative, and Talented Studies from Purdue University. Chowkase studies talent development, social and emotional learning, and equity in education. He is the recipient of the AERA Division H Outstanding Dissertation Award. Kiana Cogdill-Richardson  is a first-year graduate student in Dr. Susan Bluck’s Life Story Lab at the University of Florida. Her research examines the potential role of wisdom in shaping individual construction of autobiographical narrative, and the manner in which this interplay may affect the journey through and experiences of grief. David H. Cropley  is the University of South Australia’s Professor of Engineering Innovation. His research spans creativity in education and engineering, organizational innovation capacity, and the dark side of creativity. Cropley is author/co-author of ten books including Creativity in Education: A user’s guide for educators, parents and students (Hawker Brownlow, 2022) and Core Capabilities for Industry 4.0—Foundations of the Cyber-Psychology of Engineering (Wbv Media, 2021). Kshama R. Datar  is a facilitator and faculty at Jnana Prabodhini’s Institute of Psychology, India. She received her MA in Clinical Psychology and Post Graduate Diploma in Gifted Education. Her teaching and research focus on talent development’s cognitive, affective, and self-regulated learning aspects. Abhishek  M.  Dedhe  is a doctoral candidate in Cognitive Neuroscience at Carnegie Mellon University. His primary research focuses on using developmental cognitive psychology and Bayesian computational modeling methods to investigate the mental structures, representations, and algorithms involved in abstract sequence processing and logical rule learning. Ophélie A. Desmet  is an Assistant Professor in the College of Education and Human Services at Valdosta State University, where she is also Director of the Center for Gifted Studies. Her research investigates social, emotional, and motivational aspects of talent development. Rafaela  Diegoli  is Vice Provost for Academics at Tecnológico de Monterrey. A specialist in entrepreneurial education, she has trained entrepreneurship professors in several countries around the globe, more recently in Mexico, Nicaragua, Brazil, and Ecuador. Terhi Ek  is a university teacher at the University of Jyväskylä, Finland. She specializes in early childhood education and pedagogics, tacit knowledge, children’s wisdom, and construction of children’s forest relations. She works with the research project Development of wisdom and construction of forest relationship in preschool education in forests (WIFOR) and belongs to the multidisciplinary team of Wisdom and learning in Finnish Institute for Educational Research. Gregory J. Feist  is Professor of Psychology at San Jose State University. His work is widely published in the psychology of creativity and psychology of science. He received his PhD in 1991 from the University of California at Berkeley. He is author of The Psychology of Science: Origins of the Scientific Mind. He is also co-author of Psychology: Perspectives and Connections and Theories of Personality. Vlad  P.  Glăveanu  is Full Professor of Psychology at the School of Psychology, Dublin City University, and Adjunct Professor at the Centre for the Science of Learning and Technology, University of Bergen. His area of expertise covers creativity, imagination, culture, collaboration, perspective-taking, wonder, and possibility studies. He is the founder and president of the

Notes on Contributors

xiii

Possibility Studies Network, editor of the Palgrave Encyclopedia of the Possible, and editor of the journal Possibility Studies & Society (Sage). Adam E. Green  is Provost’s Distinguished Associate Professor at Georgetown and directs the Georgetown Laboratory for Relational Cognition. Green’s work includes research into cognitive and neural mechanisms and exogenous neuromodulation that support creative thinking, as well as research on the cognition of human belief, and on the neuroscience of teaching and learning in real-world educational contexts. He is co-founder of The Society for the Neuroscience of Creativity, and Editor-In-Chief of Creativity Research Journal. Green received a PhD in Cognitive Neuroscience from Dartmouth and did his post-doctoral training at Yale. As a loyal fan of the Detroit Tigers and other teams that aren’t very good, Adam keenly appreciates the dopamine prediction errors that offer a bit of joy to the nucleus accumbens in the moments when reality beats expectations (even by just a little). Jessica D. Hoffmann  is a research scientist at the Yale Center for Emotional Intelligence. Her research focuses on developing and testing school-based approaches for enhancing emotional intelligence and creativity skills and promoting positive school climates. Hoffman is co-editor of The Cambridge Handbook of Lifespan Development of Creativity (2021), and the Cambridge Handbook of Creativity and Emotions (2023). Zorana Ivcevic  is a Senior Research Scientist at the Yale Center for Emotional Intelligence. Her work is on the role of emotion in creativity and well-being is widely published. She edited the Cambridge Handbook of Creativity and Emotion (2023). Ivcevic received the Berlyne Award for Outstanding Early Career Achievement from the American Psychological Association. Eeva K. Kallio  is a Doctor of Psychology and Associate Professor at the University of Jyväskylä and the University of Tampere, Finland. She is interested in the development of wisdom, both from a psychological and philosophical aspects. She leads the Wisdom and Learning team at the Institute for Educational Research, University of Jyväskylä. She is Honorary President of ESRAD (European Society for Research in Adult Development), and has edited several books on developmental psychology. She is involved in Academy of Finland project WISDOM IN PRACTICE (2022-2026), and is leader of its work package “Psychological foundations of research on wisdom.” Hansika Kapoor  is Research Author at the Department of Psychology, Monk Prayogshala. She holds a PhD from IIT, Bombay in the area of dark creativity aka how people get good ideas to do bad things. Her research interests lie in individual differences, socio-moral psychology, and behavioral science. Sareh  Karami  is an assistant professor of Educational Psychology at Mississippi University. Karami earned her doctorate in Educational Studies from Purdue University. She received her bachelor’s and first master’s in clinical psychology from the University of Tehran. She served as the head of the research and extracurricular programs department in the Iranian gifted school for more than ten years. Karami left her job to do more graduate work in education at the University of British Columbia, Canada. She received her second master’s in education from UBC. She has co-developed two theories of wisdom; the Iranian Hierarchical wisdom model based on an Iranian literary canon and Polyhedron Wisdom Model based on Western literature. Karami has published several articles and books on wisdom, creativity, and intelligence. She has received several awards in recognition of the quality of her work, including the Herb Handly Research Award of Mississippi State University, John Feldhusen Fellowship of Purdue University, the Carolyn Callahan NAGC Doctoral Student Award, and two NAGC Doctoral Student Gala Award. James C. Kaufman  is a Professor of Educational Psychology at the Neag School of Education at the University of Connecticut. He has written or edited more than 50 books including The Creativity Advantage (Cambridge) and Lessons in creativity from musical theatre characters (with Dana P. Rowe; Routledge).

xiv

Notes on Contributors

Todd Lubart  earned his PhD from Yale University. He is a professor of psychology at University Paris Cité. He is former director of an applied psychology research laboratory, coordinator of several grants and contracts, and he has numerous articles, books, and psychological tests to his credit. His current lines of research involve the measures of creative potential, environmental support for creativity using virtual reality, development of creativity through game play and the use of generative AI for creativity. Lubart serves on the editorial board of several journals concerning creativity and innovation. He received the Berlyne award from the American Psychological Association, the NAGC Torrance Award, and was a junior member of the Institut Universitaire de France. He is president of the non-profit scientific society ISSCI (the International Society for the Study of Creativity and Innovation, issci.online). Laura Mononen  is a Doctoral researcher and University teacher in Cognitive science research group and part of research communities on Wisdom and learning, Sustainability and Wellbeing at the University of Jyväskylä, Finland. Her research focuses on systems thinking, human-technology interaction design, and the process of renewal in all its wonderment. Michael D. Mumford  received his doctoral degree from the University of Georgia in 1983 in the fields of industrial and organizational psychology and psychometrics. He has published more than 450 peer-reviewed articles (H>100) in the fields of creativity, leadership, planning, and ethics. Tanner R. Newbold  received his doctoral degree from the University of Oklahoma in 2023 in the field of industrial and organizational psychology. His research focuses largely on the topics of leadership, creativity, and innovation. He works as a People Analytics Consultant at Mountain America Credit Union. Jonathan A. Plucker  is Professor of Education at the Johns Hopkins School of Education. His work focuses on creativity, talent development, and education policy. He is especially concerned with helping teachers and parents learn strategies for promoting transformational creativity in children. Saphia Richou  is a consultant in futures studies. She is the president of the Prospective Foresight Network, which is the French node of the Millennium Project: www.prospective-­foresight.com. She holds a PhD in management sciences and is an associate researcher at Larequoi, the management research laboratory of the University of Versailles Saint-Quentin. Her research areas include coopetition, multimodal educational engineering, and Virtual Reality in management. Mark A. Runco  is the Director of Creativity Research and Programming at Southern Oregon University. He previously was tenured at the University of Hawaii, Hilo, California State University, Fullerton, and the University of Georgia. He was Endowed Professor of Creative Studies and Director of the Creativity Center at UGA. Runco is Editor Emeritus of the Creativity Research Journal and is Editor in Chief of the Journal of Creativity. He is Past President and Fellow of Division 10 of the American Psychological Association and recipient of various awards, including three Lifetime Achievement awards (the latest from the APA). Runco co-edited three editions of the Encyclopedia of Creativity and has approximately 300 articles and chapters on creativity published under his name. The third edition of his textbook, Creativity: Research, development, and practice (Academic Press) has been translated into 12 languages. Runco founded Creativity Testing Services and published several dozen tests covering many aspects of creative potential and creative performance. He has consulted with Lego, Disney, Turner Broadcasting, Crayola, and a number of other international companies. Dean Keith Simonton  is Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Psychology at the University of California, Davis. Since the early 1970s, he has conducted scientific research on genius, creativity, and leadership. His work, including hundreds of articles, book chapters, and more than a dozen books have appeared in several award-winning publications. He is the winner of the Ernest R. Hilgard Award of the Society for General Psychology, APA Division 1.

Notes on Contributors

xv

Robert J. Sternberg  is Professor of Psychology in the College of Human Ecology at Cornell University and Honorary Professor of Psychology at Heidelberg University, Germany.Sternberg is a Past President of the American Psychological Association and the Federation of Associations in Brain and Behavioral Sciences.Sternberg earned his PhD is from Stanford University and holds 13 honorary doctorates. Sternberg has won the Cattell Award and the James Award from the Association for Psychological Science, the Grawemeyer Award in Psychology, and the Distinguished Scholar and Torrance Awards from the NAGC.He was cited recently by research. com as the #7 top psychological scientist in the US and #15 in the world. Anirudh  Tagat  is Research Author at the Department of Economics, Monk Prayogshala, Mumbai. His primary research areas are behavioral and experimental economics and applied microeconomics. Tagat has previously been awarded grant funding from the Partnership for Economic Policy (PEP), National Council for Applied Economic Research (NCAER), and The International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie). He is Deputy Editor at South Asia Research. Tagat holds a joint PhD in economics from the IIT Bombay and Monash University.

List of Figures

Fig. 3.1 Fig. 5.1 Fig. 6.1 Fig. 7.1 Fig. 7.2 Fig. 7.3 Fig. 7.4 Fig. 9.1 Fig. 11.1 Fig. 12.1 Fig. 13.1 Fig. 16.1 Fig. 16.2

Principled process model of creative agentic action 31 Foresight methods (Popper, 2008) (Popper, R. (2008). How are foresight methods selected?. foresight. 10(6), 62–89) 60 The three Cs conception of creativity 76 A systems model of creativity 90 Creativity as competency91 Stages of creativity and associated cognition 93 External drivers of the system of creativity 96 Cladistic model of transformative science. (From Anderson & Feist, 2017) 123 A model for transformational creative agency in diverse schools 162 Summary of the main theoretical claims of the article 176 The AMORAL model applied to intentional sludges and dark patterns189 Typical student schedule before and after Tec21 implementation 236 Structure of typical Tec21 concentrations. (Source: Tecnológico de Monterrey, 2022a) 238

xvii

List of Tables

Table 2.1 Table 7.1 Table 13.1 Table 18.1

Types of Creativity Positive (benevolent) factors associated with creativity Some instances of behavioral interventions Implicit quantitative variation in the components of the creative genius definition Table 20.1 Factors Affecting Judgments of Kinds of Creativity

18 90 184 259 287

xix

Chapter 1

Why Transformational Creativity? Robert J. Sternberg and Sareh Karami

Once upon a time, teaching for creativity—simply teaching for creativity—seemed like not just a good idea, but even like a great idea. The senior author of this chapter first wrote about teaching for creativity in another era—in 1986 (Sternberg, 1986; see also Sternberg & Williams, 1996)-and has continued to write about it ever since. At the time, he was just one of many researchers writing about creativity. Many of their ideas were collected at the end of the twentieth century in a Handbook of Creativity (Sternberg, 1999), which reflected the optimism the coauthor and others had at the time. It is hard to say who got the teaching-for-creativity movement going. Certainly, much of the credit must go to Guilford (1950, 1964, 1967), who woke up the field of psychology to the importance of teaching for creativity. But before him, Duncker (1945) was studying insightful (creative) problem solving from a Gestaltist point of view and Norman R. F. Maier (1970) continued with this tradition based on Gestalt thinking. Edward De Bono (1999, 2015) is perhaps the most world-renowned researcher to have studied teaching creative thinking and in recent times, Sir Ken Robinson and Lou Aronica (2015) have been widely cited for their contributions to recognizing the importance of teaching for creativity. Ronald Beghetto et al. (2015), recognizing that schools in the United States were fearful of teaching for creativity because of various state and national standards, even wrote a book on how to teach for creativity in the context of current test-obsessed schooling. Craft and her colleagues (2001) were thinking not only about teaching for creativity, but how to make schools creative as a system. At about the same time, Sternberg (2000) argued that schools failed to be creative because they often were unable to change, unwilling to change, unwilling to appear to change, and lacking the self-efficacy to change, even if it were possible. R. J. Sternberg (*) Department of Psychology, College of Human Ecology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA S. Karami Mississippi State University, Starkville, MS, USA © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2024 R. J. Sternberg, S. Karami (eds.), Transformational Creativity, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-51590-3_1

1

2

R. J. Sternberg and S. Karami

The last piece the first author of this article wrote on “teaching for creativity” was in 2016 (Sternberg, 2016). At that time, the second author was a graduate student studying gifted, talented, and creative studies. She was working on some projects, and during her investigations, she learned that intelligence and creativity are important but not enough (Karami & Ghahremani, 2016). We stopped writing about “teaching for creativity” because we, like many others, began to recognize more fully that creativity not only has a dark side (e.g., Cropley et al., 2010; James et al., 1999; James & Taylor, 2010; Kapoor & Kaufman, 2022a, 2022b; Sternberg, 2010), but that several contextual elements in the modern world have converged to make the spread of dark creativity more likely. Some are new; others are not. But together, they create a new context for the world.

Why Malignant Creativity is Spreading at an Alarming Rate Malignant creativity—creativity that is harmful, toxic, and often malevolent—is spreading in part because so many forces are converging that lead to its being tolerated and often even rewarded. The spread of malignant creativity at an alarming rate can be attributed to several interconnected factors. While there is limited specific research on malignant creativity, the following discussion presents potential reasons based on existing knowledge and trends. Ease of disseminating false ideas on the Internet. It used to be difficult, perhaps nearly impossible, for someone in a technologically developing country to disseminate ideas to a broad global audience. How would they even get started? They might send letters, or hope that, somehow, a posting in a local newspaper might gain traction. But the chances were remote. Today, anyone can post anything on the Internet, just so long as they have or can find an Internet connection. Even better, recipients of the ideas often do not know where the ideas come from. So, if you specialize in disinformation and misinformation, in any locale, you get it out without anyone realizing who you are, where you are, or whom you are working for. This gives purveyors of false information an enormous advantage. And they can create bots to further the spread of false information. They do not have to advertise that they work for a particular organization, such as a political or governmental group, in a particular country. People may engage in the spread of false information on the Internet for different reasons. Some individuals seek attention or validation by creating and disseminating controversial content. Others may have ideological or personal motivations to promote a specific belief system, conspiracy theory, or agenda. Research suggests that anonymity facilitated by online platforms contributes to the utilization of creativity in negative ways (Suler, 2004). The anonymity provided by the Internet can encourage individuals to spread false information without facing immediate consequences. The lack of accountability associated with anonymity can lower self-consciousness, leading to increased negative creative expression. In pursuit of viral success, individuals may create provocative or

1  Why Transformational Creativity?

3

controversial content that garners attention and spreads rapidly (Tufekci, 2014). Individuals may use “clickbait” practices to generate website traffic, increase social media following, or derive financial benefits. Clickbait refers to exaggerating claims or leaving out key information in order to attract clicks on the information. Organizations and governments have been engaged in such practices too. Organizations may spread false information on the Internet for several reasons. Economic motives, such as increasing profits or gaining a competitive advantage, can drive organizations to manipulate public opinion by spreading false narratives. Organizations may sometimes seek to protect their reputation or divert attention from negative publicity. Governments have been known to disseminate false information online for various reasons. Propaganda and information warfare are common tactics employed by governments to control narratives, manipulate public opinion, or undermine opposing ideologies. Governments may also use false information to maintain social stability, suppress dissent, or discredit political opponents. Additionally, false information can be utilized as a tool for geopolitical influence, enabling governments to shape international perceptions or gain strategic advantages. Social media. Social media platforms have become integral parts of our world. Social media platforms provide individuals with numerous opportunities for self-­ expression, connectivity, and creativity. The anonymity and disinhibition provided by social media, coupled with the amplification of harmful content and the prevalence of cyberbullying and online harassment, contribute to the dark side of creative expression in the digital age. First, social media provide specific channels to disseminate information that, at least in theory, can reach millions or even over a billion viewers. These media are available to anyone, and again, origins can be disguised. The advantage of social media is the rapidity with which a post can be reposted so that it has millions of viewers all over the world within only a very short time span. Social media platforms employ complex algorithms that determine the visibility and reach of content. These algorithms often prioritize engagement metrics, such as likes, shares, and comments, which can inadvertently amplify harmful creative content. Besides, social media platforms tend to algorithmically select content based on users’ preferences and previous interactions. This personalized content delivery can create echo chambers where individuals are primarily exposed to like-minded perspectives and beliefs. Echo chambers reinforce and normalize negative creative pursuits within specific online communities, worsening polarization and increasing the likelihood of harmful behavior (Bakshy et al., 2015). Besides, as mentioned above, social media platforms often allow users to remain anonymous or create pseudonymous identities. When individuals feel shielded by anonymity, they may feel more emboldened to engage in destructive behaviors, such as cyberbullying, hacking, or creating malicious content (Joinson, 2007). Social media interactions lack many of the face-to-face communication restraints, resulting in what is known as the “online disinhibition effect.” This effect can lead individuals to engage in more extreme or negative behaviors, as they feel detached from the consequences of their actions (Suler, 2004).

4

R. J. Sternberg and S. Karami

Attention given to darkly creative ideas. Negative posts diffuse faster and more widely than positive ones (Schöne et al., 2021). Negative information evokes stronger emotional responses, leading individuals to share and engage with such content more frequently. This emotional intensity fuels the viral spread of negative posts, as they generate heightened levels of arousal and captivate users’ attention. Besides, negative content often generates more engagement and interactions than positive content, as individuals are more likely to respond, comment, or share posts that evoke strong positive or negative emotions. Besides, Zhu et al. (2020) found that negative emotions drove the information to spread fast, while positive emotions slowed the diffusion. For those looking for followers, therefore, there is an incentive to post negatively, and to be creative so that one’s negative postings are distinguished from those of others. The post-Enlightenment blurring of truth and falsehood. The Enlightenment era marked a significant intellectual and philosophical shift, emphasizing reason, empirical evidence, and rationality as the foundations for understanding the world (Grenz, 1996). Objective truth and the pursuit of knowledge were highly valued during this period. However, the blurring of truth and falsehood has become a pervasive challenge in the post-Enlightenment era. The post-Enlightenment era has witnessed exponential growth in the availability and accessibility of information through digital technologies and the Internet. This inundation of information makes it increasingly difficult to discern truth from falsehood. The sheer volume of information, combined with the lack of quality control and fact-checking mechanisms, has created an environment where misinformation and disinformation thrive, contributing to the blurring of truth. That is why fact-checking is a necessary twenty-­ first-­century skill (Kellner & Share, 2007). However, facts do not really much change people’s minds (Kolbert, 2017). Human beings are prone to cognitive biases, such as confirmation bias, which leads individuals to seek information that confirms their preexisting beliefs and values. In the post-Enlightenment era, echo chambers and filter bubbles formed on social media platforms reinforce these biases, fostering the spread of misinformation and hindering the objective assessment of truth. For example, Rupert Murdoch of Fox News has admitted to what amounts to a culture of lying at Fox and admitted that he did not stop them, even knowing they were lying (Folkenflik, 2023). Despite the admission of massive lying by Murdoch, then Chair of Fox Corporation and Executive Chairman of News Corp, nothing much has changed. People believe what they want to believe. A congresswoman—someone in the top echelons of the U.S. government—blamed wildfires in California on a Jewish space laser (Chait, 2021). She was re-elected in 2022 with two-thirds of the vote in her Congressional district. A.I. bots that have no loyalty to the truth. Artificial intelligence (A.I.) bots, such as Chat-GPT and its successor, Chat-GPT-4, can produce coherent text and plausible answers to many questions. However, these answers are based on pattern matching to previously stored text. A.I. bots operate based on algorithms designed to optimize particular objectives, such as engagement, virality, or influence. While these objectives may align with truthfulness in some cases, algorithms can be manipulated or biased to prioritize other factors, leading to the generation and

1  Why Transformational Creativity?

5

dissemination of misinformation or disinformation. A.I. bots lack an inherent ethical framework and moral compass. They do not possess the human capacity to recognize the importance of truth or the consequences of spreading falsehoods. Their programmed objectives drive their actions, which may not necessarily align with truthfulness. A.I. bots are often programmed to prioritize user engagement and virality to achieve their objectives. In pursuit of these goals, they may amplify sensational or controversial content, regardless of its veracity. By exploiting human psychological biases and leveraging algorithms to maximize reach and user interaction, these bots contribute to disseminating falsehoods. Individuals or organizations with vested interests can manipulate or control A.I. bots. By employing A.I. bots to propagate specific narratives or misinformation campaigns, malicious actors can manipulate public opinion, influence elections, or advance their own agendas. The now ready availability of such bots makes it easy to spread responses that appear to be factual and even creative, but that are based on falsehoods. One notable incident involved the spread of misinformation about the candidate Hillary Clinton. A.I. bots generated and circulated false stories, such as fabricated allegations of criminal activity or health issues, which gained significant traction on social media. These bots leveraged the algorithms’ preference for engaging content, targeting users with tailored messages and manipulative tactics to increase the reach and virality of false information. The impact of these A.I. bots was significant, as the spread of misinformation influenced public perception and affected the electoral discourse. Besides the political results, these stories gained views on Google and Facebook, and some of the individuals publishing these stories made substantial sums of money—tens of thousands of U.S. dollars—from their efforts. The bottom line is that fake news is omnipresent and people must learn both to be aware of it and how to counter it so as not to act in ways that propagate it and potentially cause harm (Braun & Eklund, 2019; Georgacopoulos et al., 2020). Polarization of societies. Many societies are becoming increasingly polarized. Some narcissistic politicians are masters of using and increasing polarization to further their own aims (e.g., Jones, 2020; Leonhardt & Moses, 2023). The dictator’s playbook has changed little since ancient times. A polarizing leader gains followers by blaming his (it is usually a “him”) disfavored group for the problems of his preferred group, and makes his preferred group feel victimized and in need of redress. The more things change, the more they stay the same. There are always creative, new ways of achieving polarization, such as, in recent times, through the Internet, but the goals and means of achieving the goals change only superficially—the main goal is to stay in power by setting one group against another. Societal polarization often leads to a breakdown in collaboration and information sharing. As groups become more polarized, they tend to retreat into echo chambers that reinforce their existing beliefs and perspectives. This isolation limits exposure to diverse ideas and discourages collaborative efforts, hindering the generation of innovative and creative solutions. Polarization often leads to a deterioration of trust and effective communication between individuals or groups with different viewpoints. Mutual suspicion prevents constructive collaboration

6

R. J. Sternberg and S. Karami

necessary for creative endeavors. Lack of trust and effective communication hinders the exchange of ideas and the emergence of novel solutions. Degradation of idea of truth and openness to alternative ideas in schools. Legislatures and even parent groups are becoming more aggressive in seeking teaching in schools that conforms to an ideological commitment rather than to a commitment to the truth (Cineas, 2023; Natanson, 2023). Individuals in society are susceptible to confirmation bias, gravitating toward information that aligns with their preexisting beliefs and values (Nickerson, 1998). As mentioned above, the prevalence of social media and self-selected online communities can create echo chambers, reinforcing individuals’ existing viewpoints and limiting exposure to alternative ideas. This narrowing of perspectives inhibits critical thinking and openness to diverse viewpoints. Bias can come from the right or from the left. The increasing polarization in society has seeped into educational environments, with political and ideological divisions affecting the discourse within schools. In such contexts, the search for truth may take a backseat to promote partisan agendas, suppressing dissenting voices, and dismissing alternative ideas that do not align with dominant ideologies. Curriculum constraints and the emphasis on standardized testing create an environment that prioritizes rote memorization of information over critical thinking and exploration of alternative ideas. Educators, administrators, and students may shy away from controversial topics or ideas that challenge the status quo due to concerns over potential backlash, discomfort, or offense. Teachers are understandably fearful of engaging in subjects such as critical race theory, transgender students’ rights, and pandemic-related issues. This avoidance of difficult discussions and controversial ideas can limit intellectual growth, impede the development of critical thinking skills, and hinder the exploration of alternative viewpoints. Recently, a judge was invited by a conservative group at Stanford Law School to speak and his speech, like so many others recently, was disrupted and could not be completed. A school administrator took the side of the disruptors. The university apologized to the judge (Jaschik, 2023). This kind of event has become relatively common. Even students and some administrators at prestigious universities seem not to want to hear points of view other than their own. However, these diverse perspectives among students can naturally lead to discussions about diversity, equity, and inclusion—both in the classroom and in the discipline (Perdrial et al., 2023). When the idea of truth is degraded, individuals are more likely to cling to stereotypes and conventional thinking, as they provide a sense of stability and familiarity. Sticking with existing ideas and patterns prevents the exploration of alternative perspectives and limits the potential for novel and transformative ideas to emerge. When the truth is devalued, individuals may prioritize personal gain or adherence to prevailing norms over ethical considerations. This lack of moral grounding can lead to negative outcomes in creative endeavors. Financial gain. Pursuing financial gain sometimes leads individuals to engage in negative creativity, where unethical practices are employed to maximize profits. Greed, a strong desire for material wealth and success, often drives individuals to engage in unethical behaviors (Trevino & Nelson, 2021). Additionally, the pressure to meet financial targets, coupled with a lack of ethical restraint, can lead

1  Why Transformational Creativity?

7

individuals to resort to negative creativity to achieve their goals. For example, the palace of the president of Turkey, Recep Erdogan, was built at a cost estimated to be over $600 million. It is 30 times bigger than the U.S. White House (Adams, 2017). Vladimir Putin’s not-so-secret palace is worth an estimated $1.4 billion, with 700 cars and 58 aircraft (The Federal, 2022). And of course, kings and queens often inherit vast sums of wealth. The creative part of their jobs, in part, is to keep their jobs so that they do not lose access to their wealth, and in some cases, so that they do not follow the path of Saddam Hussein and lose their life as well. Financial gain does not apply, of course, only to national leaders. Individuals in multiple industries work every day to gain money for shareholders or users of products at the expense of those who should be benefited, as for example, the mentality of increasing young people’s clicks at the cost of their mental health, or adults’ gambling at the expense of their financial stability. Power gain. Throughout history, gaining power has been an important goal for some individuals due to various psychological, social, and evolutionary factors. Power allows individuals to influence others, control resources, and shape their environment, which can lead to increased status, security, and opportunities for personal gain. Creativity can be employed to gain power by enabling individuals to generate innovative ideas, solve complex problems, and develop unique strategies. The greatest problem with loss of power was seen, of course, with Adolf Hitler, Saddam Hussein, and with Muammar Gaddafi, among many others in history, who, upon losing their power, also lost their lives. Others, such as Donald Trump, are under multiple criminal investigations (Feuer et al., 2023). Creativity plays a crucial role in pursuing power, as it enables individuals to generate novel ideas, solutions, and strategies that set them apart from others. Is it any wonder that Trump tried every creative way he could think of to stay in power, including multiple attempts to overturn the election of his successor (Helderman, 2022)? Leaders who have used their power questionably, corruptly, or simply criminally, have a strong incentive to be perversely creative to stay in power, because once they are out of it, they may find their safety or even their life in a precarious position. Diffusion and acceptance of narcissism of leaders. Narcissism appears to be on the rise in many countries around the world (Shaw, 2021). At the same time, we are seeing notable levels of narcissism in organizational and political leaders. And although narcissism can have advantages, the disadvantages can just take one’s breath away (Maccoby, 2004), as in the case of the genocidal leaders in large countries such as China and Russia (Hinton, 2023; Maizland, 2022). As always, while apologists and wordsmiths argue over exact wording (genocide? Ethocide? Massacre? Re-education? Ethnic cleansing?), creative and narcissistic dictators seek out novel ways to torture and kill people while hiding their aims and means. People may accept narcissistic leaders for various reasons, including psychological, social, and contextual factors. One reason people accept narcissistic leaders is the charismatic appeal often associated with narcissism. Narcissistic individuals are often skilled at self-promotion and projecting confidence, which can attract followers and create an initial positive impression (Bolino & Turnley, 1999). Research has shown that narcissistic leaders can be perceived as charismatic, inspiring, and

8

R. J. Sternberg and S. Karami

captivating, leading to followers’ admiration and loyalty (Campbell et al., 2011). Unfortunately, such eagerness to please often comes at the cost of losing one’s identity as a moral person (Humphreys et al., 2010). Research suggests that individuals with low self-esteem or a need for validation may be more prone to accepting and following narcissistic leaders (Rosenthal & Pittinsky, 2006). Narcissistic leaders can provide a sense of affirmation and validation to followers who seek external validation and approval. And many people just are afraid to cross the narcissistic leaders, aware that the consequences may be severe. Another factor contributing to the acceptance of narcissistic leaders is the followers’ need for strong and decisive leadership. In times of uncertainty or crisis, individuals may seek leaders who display assertiveness, confidence, and a strong sense of self-belief, qualities often associated with narcissistic leaders (Grijalva et al., 2015). This need for guidance and certainty can make individuals more likely to accept narcissistic leaders, despite their potential negative traits. Furthermore, social and cultural factors play a role in the acceptance of narcissistic leaders. In some cultures, leadership traits such as assertiveness, dominance, and self-confidence are highly valued, and narcissistic individuals may exhibit these traits to a greater degree (House et al., 2004). Cultural norms and expectations can shape followers’ perceptions and acceptance of leadership styles, including those characterized by narcissism. There always have been incentives to be perversely creative. But today there are just so many ways to exploit incentives and to be perversely creative at other people’s expense. This is where transformational creativity comes in.

The Transformational Creativity Alternative Transformational creativity is the production of novel and useful ideas and products that, over the long- as well as the short-term, make the world a better place—that make a positive, meaningful, and potential enduring difference to the world. Transformational creativity combines creativity with wisdom—the seeking of a long-term as well as a short-term common good (Sternberg, 2019a, 2019b). Because creativity can so easily become negative or even malignant, parents, teachers, and administrators should work to teach for transformational creativity in a purposeful and deliberate way. Students need to realize that ends matter—that it is important not only to be creative, but also to be creative for good ends. Transformational creativity can be distinguished from transactional creativity, which is tit-for-tat creativity—where one is creative in exchange for a reward, often a tangible one. Transformational creativity is a key element of what we have called transformational giftedness (Sternberg, 2020a, 2020b, 2022; Sternberg et al., 2022; Sternberg et al., 2021). There are various types of transformational creativity, based on the typology for transformational giftedness:

1  Why Transformational Creativity?

9

Self-transformational creativity—one creatively transforms oneself to become a better, more integrated, or more self-actualized person and thereby to achieve one’s personal goals in life. Other-transformational creativity—one creatively transforms others to help them to become better, more integrated, or more self-actualized people, and thereby to achieve their goals in life. Fully transformational creativity—one creatively transforms both the self and others. Pseudo-transformational creativity—one pretends to use one’s creativity to transform oneself into a better person or others into better people, but is only out of personal gain, often at others’ expense. There is further: Transactional creativity—one is creative for rewards, usually short-term ones. One gives as one gets in return. Inert creativity—one has the ability to be creative but does not use it, whether because of a lack of a creative attitude or because the environment in which one lives suppresses one’s creativity. The greatest catch in the definition of transformational creativity is the need for a positive difference over the long- as well as the short-term. It is a catch because so many ideas seem like good ideas at first, and then prove to be disastrous. There was thalidomide, the drug for pregnant women that was designed to relieve morning sickness but that later caused serious birth defects in the children born of mothers who took the drug (Thalidomide Victims Association of Canada, n.d.). There was leaded gasoline, introduced to boost octane ratings, which can cause brain and other bodily damage, especially in children (Domonoske, 2021). There were chloroflurocarbons, used as refrigerants and in sprays, which severely damaged the ozone layer (Domonoske, 2021). (Oddly, the same person who developed leaded gasoline also developed chloroflurocarbons, Thomas Midgley, Jr.) The risk is that ideas that, at one time, seem like a good idea, will not seem like such a great idea later on. At least some of the Crusaders of times past may have thought that their campaigns were a good and noble idea, despite the fact that what they were doing violated almost everything Jesus had to say about the precepts of Christianity (Rooney, 2012). Clearly, no one can predict every aspect of the future. And no one can look at every aspect of everything they do. The problem with many seemingly creative ideas, however, is not that people cannot predict the long-term or look at broad implications, but rather that they do not even try to think about the long-term implications of what they are doing or the full range of effects of their ideas. The Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church, Kirill, is today supporting the genocide in the Ukraine (di Giovanni, 2022), making a mockery of his position in the Russian Orthodox religious hierarchy. The war may be novel and useful to a dictator to consolidate his power—it is the only massive genocide in Europe since World War II and may have been the only way Putin could see to remain in power—but it was based on pseudo-transformational creativity—the claim to create a better world while working hard to make the world much worse than it is. Creativity always requires serious analytical and critical as well as creative thinking (Sternberg, 2018).

10

R. J. Sternberg and S. Karami

Transformational creativity requires moral thinking as well (Kohlberg, 1975), and not just the pretense of moral thinking.

References Adams, G. (2017, April 17). Luxury-loving tyrant with a palace 30 times the bigger than the White House: Guy Adams reveals opulence of Erdogan’s £500 million official residence. Daily Mail. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-­4419762/A-­tyrant-­palace-­three-­times-­White-­ House.html Bakshy, E., Messing, S., & Adamic, L.  A. (2015). Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. Science, 348(6239), 1130–1132. Beghetto, R. A., Kaufman, J. C., & Baer, J. (2015). Teaching for creativity in the Common Core classroom. Teachers College Press. Bolino, M.  C., & Turnley, W.  H. (1999). Measuring impression management in organizations: A scale development based on the Jones and Pittman taxonomy. Organizational Research Methods, 2(2), 187–206. Braun, J.  A., & Eklund, J.  L. (2019). Fake news, real money: Ad tech platforms, profit-driven hoaxes, and the business of journalism. Digital Journalism, 7(1), 1–21. Campbell, W. K., Hoffman, B. J., Campbell, S. M., & Marchisio, G. (2011). Narcissism in organizational contexts. Human Resource Management Review, 21(4), 268–284. Chait, J. (2021, January 28). Marjorie Taylor Greene blamed wildfires on secret Jewish space laser. New York Magazine Intelligencer. https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/marjorie-­taylor-­ greene-­qanon-­wildfires-­space-­laser-­rothschild-­execute.html Cineas, F. (2023, February 28). Ron DeSantis’s war on “woke” in Florida schools, explained. Vox. https://www.vox.com/policy-­and-­politics/23593369/ ron-­desantis-­florida-­schools-­higher-­education-­woke Craft, A., Jeffrey, B., & Leibling, M. (Eds.). (2001). Creativity in education. Continuum. Cropley, D. H., Cropley, A. J., Kaufman, J. C., & Runco, M. A. (Eds.). (2010). The dark side of creativity. Cambridge University Press. De Bono, E. (2015). Lateral thinking: Creativity step by step (reissue ed.). Harper Colophone. De Bono, R. (1999). Six thinking hats. Back Bay Books. Di Giovanni, J. (2022, April 26). The real reason the Russian Orthodox Church’s leader supports Putin’s war. Foreign Policy. https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/04/26/ ukraine-­war-­russian-­orthodox-­church-­support-­patriarch-­kirill-­homophobia/ Domonoske, C. (2021, August 30). The world has finally stopped using leaded gasoline. Algeria used the last stockpile. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2021/08/30/1031429212/ the-­world-­has-­finally-­stopped-­using-­leaded-­gasoline-­algeria-­used-­the-­last-­stockp Duncker, K. (1945). On problem-solving. In L. S. Lees (trans.), Psychological monographs, 58(5), i–113. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093599 Feuer, A., Hakim, D., & Protess, B. (2023, February 22). The progress and obstacles in 4 criminal inquiries into Trump. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/22/us/politics/ trump-­criminal-­investigations-­status.html?searchResultPosition=3 Folkenflik, D. (2023, February 28). Rupert Murdoch says Fox stars ‘endorsed’ lies about 2020. He chose not to stop them. NPR.org. https://www.npr.org/2023/02/28/1159819849/ fox-­news-­dominion-­voting-­rupert-­murdoch-­2020-­election-­fraud Georgacopoulos, C., Mores, G., & Poché, T. (2020, August). Fight fake news. Louisiana State University. https://faculty.lsu.edu/fakenews/protect_yourself/fight-fake-news.php Grenz, S. J. (1996). A primer on postmodernism. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. Grijalva, E., Harms, P. D., Newman, D. A., Gaddis, B. H., & Fraley, R. C. (2015). Narcissism and leadership: A meta-analytic review of linear and nonlinear relationships. Personnel Psychology, 68(1), 1–47.

1  Why Transformational Creativity?

11

Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5(9), 444–454. https://doi.org/10.1037/ h0063487 Guilford, J.  P. (1964, June 23). “Models for Creative Problem Solving.” Alex Osborn Creative Studies Collection. Archives & Special Collections Department, E. H. Butler Library, SUNY Buffalo State. https://digitalcommons.buffalostate.edu/cs-­speakers/15 Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. McGraw-Hill. Helderman, R.  S. (2022, February 9). All the ways Trump tried to overturn the election—And how it could happen again. Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ interactive/2022/election-­overturn-­plans/ Hinton, A. (2023, February 19). A year on, we have clear evidence of genocide in Ukraine. The Hill. https://thehill.com/opinion/international/3859439-­a-­year-­on-­we-­have-­clear-­evidence-­of-­ genocide-­in-­ukraine/ House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Sage. Humphreys, J., Zhao, D., Ingram, K., Gladstone, J., & Basham, L. (2010). Situational narcissism and charismatic leadership: A conceptual framework. Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management, 11(2), 118. James, K., Clark, K., & Cropanzano, R. (1999). Positive and negative creativity in groups, institutions, and organizations: A model and theoretical extension. Creativity Research Journal, 12, 211–226. James, K., & Taylor, A. (2010). Positive creativity and negative creativity (and unintended consequences). In D. H. Cropley, A. J. Cropley, J. C. Kaufman, & M. A. Runco (Eds.), The dark side of creativity (pp. 33–56). Cambridge University Press. Jaschik, S. (2023, March 13). Stanford apologizes after students heckle judge. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2023/03/13/stanford-­apologizes-­after-­students-­ heckle-­judge Joinson, A. N. (2007). Disinhibition and the Internet. In Psychology and the Internet (pp. 75–92). Academic Press. Jones, J.  M. (2020, January 21). Trump third year sets new standard for party polarization. Gallup. https://news.gallup.com/poll/283910/trump-­third-­year-­sets-­new-­standard-­party-­ polarization.aspx Kapoor, H., & Kaufman, J. C. (2022a). Creativity, morality, and the AMORAL model. In H. Kapoor & J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), Creativity and morality (pp. 5–12). Academic Press. Kapoor, H., & Kaufman, J. C. (2022b). The evil within: The AMORAL model of dark creativity. Theory & Psychology, 32(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/09593543221074 Karami, S., & Ghahremani, M. (2016). Toward an Iranian conception of giftedness. Roeper Review, 31(1), Roeper Review. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332276.2016.1194674 Kellner, D., & Share, J. (2007). Critical media literacy: Crucial policy choices for a twenty-first-­ century democracy. Policy Futures in Education, 5(1), 59–69. Kohlberg, L. (1975). Collected papers on moral and moral education. Moral Education and Research Foundation. Kolbert, E. (2017, February 19). Why facts don’t change our minds. New Yorker. https://www. newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-­facts-­dont-­change-­our-­minds Leonhardt, D., & Moses, C. (2023, March 15). Israel’s internal turmoil. New York Times. https:// www.nytimes.com/2023/03/15/briefing/israel-­netanyahu.html Maccoby, N. (2004, January). Narcissistic leaders: The incredible pros, the inevitable cons. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2004/01/narcissistic-­leaders-­the-­incredible-­pros-­the­inevitable-­cons Maier, N. R. F. (1970). Problem solving and creativity in individuals and groups. Brooks/Cole. Maizland, L. (2022, September 22). China’s repression of Uyghurs in Xinjiang. Council on Foreign Relations. https://hbr.org/2004/01/narcissistic-­leaders-­the-­incredible-­pros-­the-­inevitable-­cons Natanson, H. (2023, January 30). Teachers say parents, laws are changing how they teach race and gender. Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2023/01/25/ teachers-­say-­parents-­laws-­are-­changing-­how-­they-­teach-­race-­gender/

12

R. J. Sternberg and S. Karami

Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2(2), 175–220. Perdrial, J. N., Kincaid, D. W., Wheaton, D., Seybold, E. C., Stewart, B., Walls, L., Toolin, R., Chorover, J., & Lewis, C. (2023). Equity, diversity, and community as the basis for critical zone science and education. Earth’s Future, Advancing Earth and Space Sciences, 11(2). https://doi. org/10.1029/2022EF002812 Robinson, S. K., & Aronica, L. (2015). Creative schools: The grassroots revolution that’s transforming education. Penguin. Rooney, R. (2012, June 25). The Crusades: Motivations, administration, and cultural influence. The Newberry. https://dcc.newberry.org/?p=14390 Rosenthal, S.  A., & Pittinsky, T.  L. (2006). Narcissistic leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 617–633. Schöne, J.  P., Parkinson, B., & Goldenberg, A. (2021). Negativity spreads more than positivity on Twitter after both positive and negative political situations. Affective Science, 2, 379–390. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42761-­021-­00057-­7 Shaw, J. (2021, October 11). Are we becoming more narcissistic? BBC Science Focus. https:// www.sciencefocus.com/news/are-­we-­becoming-­more-­narcissistic/ Sternberg, R. J. (1986). Intelligence, wisdom, and creativity: Three is better than one. Educational Psychologist, 21, 175–190. Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.). (1999). Handbook of creativity. Cambridge University Press. Sternberg, R. J. (2000). Making school reform work: A “mineralogical” theory of school modifiability. Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation. Sternberg, R.  J. (2010). The dark side of creativity and how to combat it. In D.  H. Cropley, A. J. Cropley, J. C. Kaufman, & M. A. Runco (Eds.), The dark side of creativity (pp. 316–328). Cambridge University Press. Sternberg, R.  J. (2016). Teaching for creativity. In R.  A. Beghetto & J.  C. Kaufman (Eds.), Nurturing creativity in the classroom (2nd ed., pp. 355–380). Cambridge University Press. Sternberg, R. J. (2018). A triangular theory of creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 12, 50–67. Sternberg, R. J. (2019a). Introduction to the Cambridge Handbook of Wisdom: Race to Samarra: The critical importance of wisdom in the world today. In R. J. Sternberg & J. Glueck (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of wisdom (pp. 3–9). Cambridge University Press. Sternberg, R. J. (2019b). Why people often prefer wise guys to guys who are wise: An augmented balance theory of the production and reception of wisdom. In R.  J. Sternberg & J.  Glueck (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of wisdom (pp. 162–181). Cambridge University Press. Sternberg, R. J. (2020a). Transformational giftedness. In T. L. Cross & P. Olszewski-Kubilius (Eds.), Conceptual frameworks for giftedness and talent development (pp. 203–234). Prufrock Press. Sternberg, R. J. (2020b). Transformational giftedness: Rethinking our paradigm for gifted education. Roeper Review, 42(4), 230–240. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2020.1815266 Sternberg, R.  J. (2022). Transformational giftedness: Who’s got it and who does not? In R.  J. Sternberg, D.  Ambrose, & S.  Karami (Eds.), Palgrave handbook of transformational giftedness for education (pp. 355–371). Palgrave Macmillan. Sternberg, R. J., Ambrose, D., & Karami, S. (Eds.). (2022). Palgrave handbook of transformational giftedness for education. Palgrave Macmillan. Sternberg, R. J., Chowkase, A., Desmet, O., Karami, S., Landy, J., & Lu, J. (2021). Beyond transformational giftedness. Education Sciences, 11, 192. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11050192 Sternberg, R. J., & Williams, W. M. (1996). How to develop student creativity. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Suler, J. (2004). The online disinhibition effect. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 7(3), 321–326. Thalidomide Victims Association of Canada. (n.d.). Thalidomide. https://thalidomide.ca/en/ what-­is-­thalidomide/

1  Why Transformational Creativity?

13

The Federal. (2022, March 24). Vladimir Putin’s wealth: $1.4 billion mansion, 700 cars, 58 aircraft, and more. The Federal. https://thefederal.com/international/ vladimir-­putins-­wealth-­1-­4bn-­mansion-­700-­cars-­58-­aircraft-­mega-­yacht-­and-­more/ Trevino, L. K., & Nelson, K. A. (2021). Managing business ethics: Straight talk about how to do it right. John Wiley & Sons. Tufekci, Z. (2014, May). Big questions for social media big data: Representativeness, validity and other methodological pitfalls. Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social, 8(1), 505–514. Zhu, X., Kim, Y., & Park, H. (2020). Do messages spread widely also diffuse fast? Examining the effects of message characteristics on information diffusion. Computers in Human Behavior, 103, 37–47.

Chapter 2

Varieties of Transformational and Transactional Creativity Robert J. Sternberg

Is creativity of a single type, or are there different types of creativity? Scholars have held divergent views.

Creativity as of a Single Type or of Multiple Types Consider alternative views of creativity.

Creativity as of a Single Type Once upon a time, creativity was thought of, at least by many scholars in the field, in a singular way. Someone was creative in various degrees or levels, but there was relatively little talk of varieties or types of creativity. For example, de Bono (1999, 2015) viewed creativity largely in terms of levels of lateral thinking, Guilford (1950) largely in terms of divergent thinking, and Sternberg and Lubart (1995) in terms of defying the crowd. Creativity is usually defined in terms of novelty and usefulness (Kaufman & Sternberg, 2019) or effectiveness (Runco & Jaeger, 2012) of ideas and products. Some people show it more, others, less. On this view, a maximum-performance creativity test (one requiring participants to produce creative products) measures the amount of creativity that a person can offer at the time and place of testing (e.g., Dow & Mayer, 2004; Guilford, 1967; Mednick, 1962; Sternberg & Davidson, 1982; Torrance, 1974, 2008; Wallach & Kogan, 1966). Some might extend this to suggest R. J. Sternberg (*) Department of Psychology, College of Human Ecology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2024 R. J. Sternberg, S. Karami (eds.), Transformational Creativity, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-51590-3_2

15

16

R. J. Sternberg

that the test score represents some “inherent” level of creativity (e.g., Torrance), while other might view it as more task and situation specific (e.g., Sternberg & Lubart, 1995). Either way, the tests generally measure creativity as a single construct. The construct might be measured by preordained categories for evaluating it, such as, in many of the individual Torrance Tests, fluency, flexibility, originality, and elaboration. Or the construct might be measured by expert (or other) judgments—sometimes called a consensual assessment technique (CAT) (Amabile, 1983, 1996). Either way, one directly measures level of creativity by a set of creative products. An alternative type of test, a typical-performance test (one requiring participants to characterize their thinking and/or behavior), measures participants’ implicit theories of their own creative bent (e.g., Gough, 1979; Kaufman, 2012; Susanto et al., 2018). These instruments have the advantage that they characterize creative attitudes that may be more generalizable than performance on any one particular set of tasks. A drawback is that participants’ assessments of their own creativity may be inaccurate, and indeed, the Dunning-Kruger effect (Kruger & Dunning, 1999) suggests that people of low abilities often overestimate, sometimes, grossly, their own abilities.

Creativity as of Multiple Types Some researchers have categorized creativity in terms of multiple types. These categorizations differ by whether they are primarily a result of the kinds of effort the creators enact or, instead, a result of the kinds of ways that their contributions have impact. Multiple Types Primarily as a Result of Types of Efforts Some researchers have viewed creativity as not being well characterized, or at least, fully characterized by a single unidimensional scale. Sternberg (2018), for instance, suggested that creativity varies in terms of whether an individual is willing to defy the crowd, the self, and the Zeitgeist. For example, someone might be willing to defy themselves—go beyond their past thinking—but be unwilling to take on their sometimes assertive or even aggressive peers. On this view, creativity would be of three different types. Sternberg and colleagues (Sternberg, 1999; Sternberg et al., 2002) suggested that different kinds of creative contributions represented different types of creativity. For example, some people accept existing paradigms and then seek to make small increments in knowledge, drawing upon these paradigms. Other scholars make larger increments or reject existing paradigms altogether, as Kuhn (2012) has pointed out. They characterized eight different types of creative contributions, and hence, of creativity one could bring to a project.

2  Varieties of Transformational and Transactional Creativity

17

Another classification of types of creativity is one proposed by Dietrich (2019). He has suggested that creativity can be in a deliberate mode, a spontaneous mode, or a flow mode. He also has identified what he believes to be distinct neuropsychological mechanisms involved in each of the modes of creativity. Multiple Types Primarily as a Result of Creative Impact Kaufman and Beghetto (2009) proposed a 4C model of creativity. According to this model, there are four types of creativity: mini-c creativity (creativity in everyday learning), little-c creativity (everyday creativity), Pro-c creativity (professional-­ level creativity), and Big-C creativity (breakthrough, world-changing creativity). Mini-c creativity is the type one experiences when one learns something new and acquires a new perspective on a phenomenon. Little-c is our everyday experience of having a creative idea. Pro-c creativity is what many professionals are expected to show in their work when they need to solve a new problem or an old problem in a novel way. And Big-C creativity is the creativity of major innovators, such as Albert Einstein, Pablo Picasso, Marie Curie, Ludwig von Beethoven, or Ernest Hemingway. This classification describes different societal classifications of creativity but may not describe so precisely what the meanings are. For example, what, if anything, do Big-C creators have in common? And even, what constitutes Pro-c creativity other than an individual being in a professional job? In science, for example, there may be a large difference between the creativity, say, of a scientist whose work has been cited 100 or even 1000 times versus a scientist whose work has been cited 100,000, 200,000, or more times. Similarly, one scientist may be a creative teacher but not such a creative researcher, or vice versa. All classifications leave gaps, and this one is no exception. Another distinction, of particular relevance to this chapter, is between positive, neutral, and negative creativity. Positive creativity somehow makes the world a better place, in the long-term as well as in the short-term; neutral creativity does not make the world better, but neither does it make it worse; negative creativity makes the world a worse place (Clark & James, 1999; James et al., 1999; James & Taylor, 2010; Sternberg, 2021b). Although the difference among the three types may be a result of effort, sometimes, the impact is inadvertent, as when an innovation, such as the drug Thalidomide, originally appeared to be good for pregnant women and then turned out to be horrible for their as-yet unborn babies. Although I was originally rather enthusiastic about this distinction, my enthusiasm dampened somewhat when members of my research group at Cornell University and I started engaging in research on positive, neutral, and negative creativity. We found that positive creativity is very much a matter of point of view and personal or group interests. What is positive for one group (e.g., diffusion of ever-more powerful and innovative guns, including 3-D printed guns, to make people “safe” from being attacked by criminals) is negative for another group (e.g., diffusion of 3-D printed guns, which kill countless innocent people including children). Similarly, what is negative by the standards of one group is positive by the standards of another.

18

R. J. Sternberg

Donald Trump, a populist who has creatively redefined, to some extent, the process and even the meaning of running for U.S. president, apparently is seen as positively or negatively creative by different groups. Moreover, we found that most of the creative innovations that were labeled as “neutrally creative” were so labeled only because some of our raters labeled the innovations as positive and others labeled them as negative. In other words, the mean hid the large standard deviation in ratings: Few people actually labeled the innovations as neutral. Another relevant distinction for this article is that between light and dark creativity (Chamorro-Premuzik, 2015; Cropley et  al., 2010; James & Taylor, 2010; Sternberg, 2010). Light creativity is creativity used toward good ends; dark creativity is directed toward negative, and often, malign ends. Designing ever-more powerful weapon of mass destruction or attempting to achieve thought control over a population, as in the novel 1984 (Orwell, 1950) or in contemporary dictatorships, such as Russia and China, are examples of dark creativity (presented by their creators as light, of course).

Transactional and Transformational Creativity Here it is proposed that there are two types of creativity that have especial significance for the world (Table 2.1). Table 2.1  Types of Creativity Type of Creativity Transactional

Pseudo-­ Transactional I

Pseudo-­ Transactional II

Pseudo-­ Transactional III

Definition Doing creative work for material or other compensation Gives the appearance of being transactional but isn’t

Also Known As Tit-for-tat

Example Producing advertising copy for pay False Creatively pretenses convincing an unsuspecting buyer to purchase a lemon used car Appropriation Turning in as Gives the one’s own appearance of being creative work a creative but isn’t ChatGPT-written paper Is neither creative Scam One claims to sell nor transactional one’s creative work or services and then runs off with the money

Categorization Truly transactional Falsely transactional

Falsely transactional

Falsely transactional

(continued)

2  Varieties of Transformational and Transactional Creativity

19

Table 2.1 (continued) Type of Creativity Transformational

Pseudo-­ Transformational I

Also Known Definition As Makes a potentially World Changing positive, meaningful, and even enduring difference to the world at some level

(Pseudo-) Gives the appearance of being Populist transformational but isn’t

Pseudo-­ It is not really novel Old wine in a Transformational II but rather only give new bottle the appearance of being novel

Pseudo-­ Transformational Type III

It is neither really novel nor creative

Forgery

Para-­ Transformational

It is not clear whether it will be positively transformational, neutral, harmful, or even toxic; it may be some of each

Ambiguous

Example Starting a non-profit that provides low-income housing in a previously off-limits area of town Populist leader promises to make country great but destroys it for his own benefit Uncreative populist mimics the style of a successful (pseudo-) populist (e.g., mini-Trump) Fake of a Rembrandt painting alleging to show the artist had an entirely new style that had been lost to the world ChatGPT and other chatbots

Categorization Truly transformational

Falsely transformational

Falsely transformational

Falsely transformational

Questionably transformational

Basic Idea There clearly are various bases for distinguishing among different types of creativity. In this chapter, I propose one that is different from the typical division, as it is based on the purpose that creativity serves, rather than on the cognitive or other processes, or the level of employment of the individual involved in the creativity. The basis for the proposal is a theory of transformational creativity proposed by Sternberg (2021c, 2022).

20

R. J. Sternberg

The original idea, based on theories of transformational leadership (Bass, 1998; Bass & Riggio, 2006; Bass et  al., 1996) and of transformational giftedness (Sternberg, 2020a; Sternberg et al., 2021), was that creativity can serve two distinct purposes: transactional and transformational. Transactional creativity is tit-for-tat creativity. It occurs when an individual thinks or performs creatively in exchange for some kind of reward. The creativity serves the purpose of producing a reward of some kind for the creator. The other type of creativity is transformational—it is creativity in the service of making the world a better place. Transformational creativity makes a positive, meaningful, and possibly enduring difference to the world. It need not do so in a commercial way. For example, major scientific discoveries, engineering innovations, and works of art, music, and literature can be world-­ transforming, at some level. People who are transformationally creative often are also transactionally creative, at least to some extent, because they need to engage in transactions to get their ideas accepted. I also distinguished pseudo-­transformational creativity, which is intended to look transformational but is largely or solely for the creator’s benefit. But this original taxonomy was oversimplified. Here I discuss why. According to Sternberg et al. (2021), transactional and transformational creativity can be subdivided based on whether the focus is on the self, others, or both. Transformational creativity also can be real or pseudo-transformational. In this chapter, I present a different basis for classification.

 Taxonomy of Types of Transactional A and Transformational Creativity In this article, I argue that both transactional and transformational creativity can be of four types, only one of which is “genuine.” In Type I, the creativity appears to be transactional or transformational, but in fact, is not. In Type II, the transactional or transformational “creativity” appears to be creative but isn’t. In Type III, the transactional or transformational “creativity” is neither transactional nor transformational nor even creative! Each of these types is now discussed further. The taxonomy proposed here is partly motivated by Sternberg’s (2020a, 2020b) concept of transformational giftedness, but also by Sternberg and Lubart’s (2022) argument that creativity should be considered not only in terms of whether a creative contribution is novel and useful, but also in terms of whether it has integrity— whether it is externally correspondent with known facts about the world and whether it is internally consistent. On this view, conspiracy theorists such as Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., and others, most of them with the cognitive abilities to know better, may be creative but they are not creative with integrity. Rather, they use their creativity, as traditionally defined, to create chaos and potentially lead people to become ill and possibly die. It is difficult to know their motives—lack of critical thinking, political or other ideology, opportunity to raise money, gaining followers, or whatever. The need for integrity applies not only to creativity, but to all

2  Varieties of Transformational and Transactional Creativity

21

intellectual functioning (Sternberg, 2021a). Whereas the products of two other higher mental abilities—intelligence and wisdom—are generally expected to adhere to a standard of truth, products of creativity can be wildly and purposefully misleading and harmful, but nevertheless be creative. A new taxonomy needs to take into account the purpose of the creativity. Types of Transactional Creativity Transactional Creativity Transactional creativity is creativity that is tit for tat. As noted above, it is based on exchange. An individual is creative in exchange for some type of reward. There is nothing intrinsically right or wrong with transactional creativity. Many of the great creative innovations, such as computers, telephones, and iPhones, were created at least in part in the service of profits. And most great creators need to earn a living so they must be at least somewhat transactional at the same time that they are transformational. A problematic feature of the world today is that, with the advent of the Internet and of social media, more and more transactional creativity appears to be what is sometimes referred to as negative in its effect. Negative postings tend to be cited and reposted more than positive ones (Rathje et al., 2021). If we accept even the basics of behaviorist theory (Skinner, 1976), one is left with little choice but to believe that behavior will get worse, societally as well as individually, if what is rewarded is negative or even toxic behavior. Pseudo-transactional Creativity Type I The creativity is not really transactional—it gives the appearance of being transactional but isn’t. Sometimes, the appearance of a transaction, or at least a transaction that is mutually beneficial, is illusory. For example, a creative but unscrupulous used-car salesman might present the appearance of selling a car that is an unusually good value, knowing full well that the car is a lemon and of little value. Or a real-­ estate agent might sell a lemon of a house, but leave you, as the purchaser, thinking you are receiving an exceptional deal. The examples of being sold a bad used car or a defective house are hackneyed, and purposely so. The problem is that, today, many of the used-car or real-estate salesmen (or women) of yesteryear have been transformed into politicians or celebrities using their creativity to sell harmful ideas under the guise of selling good ones. For example, Robert Kennedy, Jr., mentioned earlier, is a celebrity, would-be politicians, and the son of Robert F. Kennedy, a former U.S. attorney-general. He is one of many celebrities who have taken a strong stance against COVID vaccines by distorting and ignoring scientific findings (Mnookin, 2017). These arguments include that the vaccine actually causes COVID-19, that they impair fertility, that they contain microchips that are then implanted in the body, and that they change

22

R. J. Sternberg

your DNA. Vaccine opponents have also argued that there are better preventatives, such as high temperatures, low temperatures, garlic, drinking alcohol, ultraviolet light disinfection, etc. (Mayo Clinic Health System, 2021). What is creative about these arguments? Some of the arguments Kennedy and other anti-vaccine advocates have mustered have certainly been novel, the first part of the definition of creativity. No scientist has found garlic to prevent COVID-19, so the argument is a new one, at least scientifically, or to be more precise, pseudo-­ scientifically. And the arguments are useful to their purveyors for gaining adherents who do not think critically and for raising money to spread further disinformation. The arguments are false, but oddly, truth versus falsity is not part of the definition of creativity. As noted earlier, it is creative but without integrity. Propaganda arguments are often examples of Type I pseudo-transactional creativity: Their purveyors feign providing information, when what they provide instead is falsehoods to advance their own interests. Often, the arguments are designed to make the listeners feel victimized and as though they, the purveyors, are the only ones who can save the recipients of the message. There is usually an alleged group of malefactors who are victimizing the recipients—minority-group members, foreigners, people of minority religions, people of another political party. Sadly, such messages gain traction because people often feel that their failures are caused by the invidious manipulations of others, not by their own shortcomings. Pseudo-Transactional Creativity Type II The “creativity” is transactional but not really creative—it is not really novel (and may be useful only to the individual). In this form of creativity, a pretense is made of a novel and useful solution, but the solution is either not new, not useful, or neither new nor useful. For example, the original Oreo cookie was a good cookie, perhaps, as cookies go, but as a product, it was almost an exact copy of an existing cookie, Hydrox (Editor, 2023). It was marketed as a new cookie, a pseudo-­ transactional claim to creativity. Oreo was transactional, just not creatively so, despite its appeal. And then of course there is Abidas sports products, Sunbucks coffee, and Bisleri bottled water, imitated by Bilseri, Brislei, Belsri, and other knock-off brands (Editor, 2023). Sometimes it is difficult to know where to draw the line for Type II pseudo-­ transactional creativity. For example, some fake Rolex watches are extremely close to the originals (Hall, 2019). The old fakes looked slightly like Rolexes. Then the fakes began to look like the original on the outside but not on the inside. Now the fakes even mimic the Rolex movements. A fake Rolex is creative—it takes a lot of creativity to figure out how to fake a Rolex, which was designed to resist fraud. But the fake lacks integrity, because it is being made to appear to be something it is not. The same would apply to fake Hermes handbags or other fraudulent luxury items. Does it matter? It does matter because it takes creativity to design and actually create a new kind of watch, versus imitate an existing one. Imitating an existing one

2  Varieties of Transformational and Transactional Creativity

23

involves a tremendous amount of careful analysis to figure out how the original watch was created, but that analysis is not in itself creative. Note that there are cases in which imitation an can be genuinely transactionally creative, so long as it is not fake—that is, pretending to be something it is not. Many luthiers have tried to imitate the sound as well as the appearance of original Stradivarius and Guarnerius violins and other stringed instruments. Such imitation has proven to be devilishly difficult to do. The parts of a violin, unlike those of a watch, are relatively few and fairly straightforward. The question of how to get them to sound like an original instrument is anything but straightforward. No one knows exactly how the Old Masters achieved the sound their instruments have, or even if they achieved the sound rather than the sound being partly a function of the age of the musical instrument. Often, it takes very clever and creative experimentation on the part of the luthier to come anywhere close to imitating the sound of an Old Masters violin. In contrast, many watchmakers can create a watch that tells time like a Rolex. But only a few watchmakers are creative in figuring out how Rolex achieves the watch it does through all aspects of the process of creating the watch. Most imitators care about the appearance, not the inherent quality of the watch. Pseudo-Transactional Creativity Type III Type III pseudo-transactional “creativity” is neither transactional nor creative. It is merely designed to give the appearance of transactional creativity without actually being either. On a daily basis, I receive appeals for money from various people and organizations claiming that they have discovered some new and utterly horrible threat to my personal or my country’s well-being. The emails and text messages are all variations of a theme. For example, one reads that the author is about to go to dinner with his wife, but before he does, he wants to send me an important fund-­ raising message that I just must read. You can more or less guess the rest. Types of Transformational Creativity Transformational creativity is creativity that is intended to make the world a better place. It is not merely “positive” by one person or one organization or another’s standard. Rather, it has an effect or at least a potential, to achieve some kind of common good, whether on a smaller scale or a larger scale. What Kaufman and Beghetto (2009) call Big-C Creativity may be transformational but it does not have to be. The question is whether it makes the world better. For example, the world described in the novel 1984 (Orwell, 1950), which is close to that in some dictatorships today, affects the lives of countless numbers of people. Countries like China that are working toward mind control of their citizens need creativity on a very large scale to bring about near-total control (Sharma, 2022). But their creative innovations, although massive, are not positively transformational, but rather large-scale examples of dark or even toxic creativity.

24

R. J. Sternberg

Transformational creativity can change the world in virtually any domain. Vincent Van Gogh, for example, continues to have exhibits based on his work well over a century after his death (e.g., https://vangoghexpo.com/). George Orwell’s books Animal Farm (Orwell, 1946) and 1984, which seemed like dystopian fantasy or science fiction when they were written, now seem, in many respects, and beyond the metaphorical, to have come true. Franz Kafka’s world of judgment by cackling mobs (Kafka, 2000) is echoed well in Twitter mobs, including ones joined by supposedly critically thinking scholars of various kinds. Elvis Presley, scarcely a high-­ brow singer, created a kind of rock-‘n-roll that has lived well beyond Elvis himself. Pseudo-transformational Creativity Type I This kind of “creativity” is creative but not really transformational—it gives the appearance of being transformational but isn’t. It is presented as making things better for all when it really leaves them as they are or, more likely, makes them worse. For example, the discovery of atomic power was transformational and, at the time, the atomic bombs that apparently ended World War II may have seemed transformational for ending a war. But such an appearance was an extreme example of short-­ term thinking. The threat of atomic weapons has hung over the world ever since and shows no sign of abating but rather of getting worse. The hydrocarbon belching machines that, in the short run seemed transformational in industrial society, seem to be civilization-destroying in the post-industrial run-up. I believe social media are an example of a Type I pseudo-transformational creative contribution. They at first seemed like they were going to transform the world by facilitating communication and especially by allowing more nearly free communication in autocratic societies. Instead, they have made it easier to diffuse hate propaganda, to spread false news promoted as “truth,” to cyber-bully, and to harm body images, especially of young women. Pseudo-transformational Creativity Type II This type of “creativity” is transformational but not really creative—it is not really novel but rather only give the appearance of being novel (usually, it is, metaphorically, “old wine in a new bottle”). An example would be the generative AI program, ChatGPT. It is transforming society and allowing people to acquire new ways of expressing things. But it is not creative, simply drawing on stored patterns from past communications.

2  Varieties of Transformational and Transactional Creativity

25

Pseudo-transformational Creativity Type III This type of “creativity” is neither transformational nor creative. Vladimir Putin, Jinping Xi, and other dictators have promised to transform their societies for the better. Instead, they have been revanchist, with Putin modernizing Stalin’s modes of repression and Xi modernizing Mao’s Zedong’s repressive society. One must be careful of leaders who promise creative change, which amounts to a modernized return to repressive ways that failed before. Recently, Sternberg (2023a) added an additional category: Para-transformational creativity—one uses one’s creativity in a way that is transformational but whose ultimate outcome is uncertain or mixed. It may be transformational, pseudo-transformational, or something else altogether. Its possibilities are fraught, for one or more reasons. For example, the creation of ChatGPT, a generative AI program that answers sophisticated questions and produces rather complex products, might be an example of para-transformational creativity. On the one hand, it can be used to help people create various kinds of products, often of good quality, that appear to be written by a human. On the other hand, ChatGPT can be used to fraudulently claim authorship of a document produced by AI, and ultimately it may discourage people from using their own creativity, in favor of their using the appearance of creativity produced by a machine. The products that ChatGPT generates, as of late-2023, are not highly original and sometimes contain errors of fact and logic. They raise the question of whether, in outsourcing creativity to a machine, humans are, metaphorically if not literally, making themselves obsolete. In science fiction, there are books and movies in which space aliens invade the Earth, pretending to be friends of humanity when in fact their goal is to take over the planet. (An example is the TV miniseries, V). They insinuate themselves into everyday life to the point that, when things begin to go slightly wrong and then very wrong and then hopelessly wrong, many people do not even notice it. Generative AI has a similar possibility of seeming to be helpful, right up to the point where it is not, but when it is too late to do anything about it. In this case, the alien presence would not have come from another planet, but rather, from human efforts that eventually work against humanity (much as its own weapons of mass destruction have, and in the case of generative AI, with much more intelligence). Para-transformational products need to be researched very carefully because of their future potential to cause irreparable harm as well as good.

Conclusion There are various ways to classify creativity. In this chapter, I have focused on one, transactional versus transformational creativity. I have noted that each of these two types of creativity can be either real or pseudo-. The pseudo- types of transactional and transformational creativity can be subdivided by whether they fail to be

26

R. J. Sternberg

transactional or transformational, whether they fail to be creative, or fail to be transactional or transformational and also fail to be creative. Some scholars believe that creativity is inherently positive, at least for the self. For example, my former student, James Kaufman (2023), sees creativity as largely inherently advantageous, Kaufman points out, and I agree, that creativity can lead to self-insight, can help people heal from bad experiences or even trauma, can lead people to forge connections with others, can inspire motivation and drive to succeed, and can enable people to leave behind a meaningful and perhaps even societally significant legacy. The problem with this view, I believe, is that it looks at half the picture as though it is the whole picture. Creativity today is being used, perhaps more than ever before, not only for positive but also for negative purposes. Is it an advantage when creativity is used to develop new weapons of mass destruction, to find ways for polluting companies to increase their pollution of waterways but nevertheless stay within the legal system, find ways for ultra-wealthy people to evade taxes so that only poor people and the middle-class pay them, or develop new ways of suppressing women’s reproductive and other rights? These examples are not hypothetical. They are happening right now, and they are a drop in the bucket regarding all the ways in which creativity and other gifts can be used negatively or even in ways that are toxic (Sternberg, 2023b). “Toxic” here is not metaphorical. Creatively manufactured illegal drugs, some of which stay one step ahead of the legal system, are killing people. We cannot solve a problem if we refuse to acknowledge that it exists. Creativity is important to the world, but we need to teach for creativity that is at least positive and, hopefully, transformational as well—creativity that makes the world better rather than worse. There is nothing intrinsically positive or negative about creativity. Creativity is what we, as individuals and as a society, make of it. We need to teach young people to use it to make the world better, not worse. There is a creativity advantage, but only if we choose to use creativity in a way that is advantageous not just to ourselves personally, perhaps at others’ expense, but rather, to make the world a better place.

References Amabile, T.  M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(2), 357–376. https://doi. org/10.1037/0022-­3514.45.2.357 Amabile, T.  M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to ‘The Social Psychology of Creativity’. Westview Press. Bass, B.  M. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industrial, military, and educational impact. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Bass, B.  M., Avolio, B.  J., & Atwater, L. (1996). The transformational and transactional leadership of men and women. Applied Psychology, 45(1), 5–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464­0597.1996.tb00847.x Bass, B.  M., & Riggio, R.  E. (2006). Transformational leadership: A comprehensive review of theory and research (2nd ed.). Psychology Press.

2  Varieties of Transformational and Transactional Creativity

27

Chamorro-Premuzik, T. (2015, November 14). The dark side of creativity. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2015/11/the-­dark-­side-­of-­creativity Clark, K., & James, K. (1999). Justice and positive and negative creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 12, 311–320. Cropley, D. H., Cropley, A. J., Kaufman, J. C., & Runco, M. A. (Eds.). (2010). The dark side of creativity. Cambridge University Press. De Bono, E. (1999). Six thinking hats. Back Bay Books. De Bono, E. (2015). Lateral thinking: Creativity step by step (Reissue ed.). Harper Colophone. Dietrich, A. (2019). Types of creativity. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 26(1), 1–12. https://doi. org/10.3758/s13423-­018-­1517-­7 Dow, G. T., & Mayer, R. E. (2004). Teaching students to solve insight problems. Evidence for domain specificity in training. Creativity Research Journal, 16(4), 389–402. Editor. (2023, January 23). Copycat brands and how they perform. Masters’ Union Review. https:// review.mastersunion.org/copycat-­brands-­and-­how-­they-­perform/ Gough, H. G. (1979). A creative personality scale for the Adjective Check List. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(8), 1398–1405. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-­3514.37.8.1398 Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5(9), 444–454. https://doi.org/10.1037/ h0063487 Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of intelligence. McGraw-Hill. Hall, C. (2019, September 7). It’s just got a lot harder to spot a fake Rolex. Here’s what to look for. Wired. https://www.wired.co.uk/article/how-­to-­spot-­fake-­rolex James, K., Clark, K., & Cropanzano, R. (1999). Positive and negative creativity in groups, institutions, and organizations: A model and theoretical extension. Creativity Research Journal, 12, 211–226. James, K., & Taylor, A. (2010). Positive creativity and negative creativity (and unintended consequences). In D. H. Cropley, A. J. Cropley, J. C. Kaufman, & M. A. Runco (Eds.), The dark side of creativity (pp. 33–56). Cambridge University Press. Kafka, F. (2000). The trial. Penguin. Kaufman, J. C. (2012). Kaufman Domains of Creativity Scale (K-DOCS) [Database record]. APA PsycTests. https://doi.org/10.1037/t17613-­000 Kaufman, J. C. (2023). The creativity advantage. Cambridge University Press. Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Beyond big and little: The four-c model of creativity. Review of General Psychology, 13, 1–13. Kaufman, J. C., & Sternberg, R. J. (Eds.) (2019). Cambridge handbook of creativity. Cambridge University Press. Kruger, J., & Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1121–1134. Kuhn, T. (2012). The structure of scientific revolutions (50th anniversary ed.). University of Chicago Press. Mednick, S. A. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological Review., 69(3), 220–232. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0048850 Mnookin, S. (2017, January 11). How Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., distorted vaccine science. Scientific American. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-­robert-­f-­kennedy-­jr-­distorted-­ vaccine-­science1/ Orwell, G. (1946). Animal farm. Harcourt, Brace, & Company. Orwell, G. (1950). 1984. Signet. Rathje, S., Van Bavel, J.  J., & van der Linden, S. (2021, June 23). Out-group animosity drives engagement on social media. PNAS, 118(26), e2024292118. https://doi.org/10.1073/ pnas.2024292118 Runco, M. A., & Jaeger, G. J. (2012). The standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 92–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2012.650092

28

R. J. Sternberg

Sharma, B. (2022, January 1). China is developing mind-control weaponry that could ‘break enemy’s will to resist.’ India Times. https://www.indiatimes.com/technology/news/china-­is-­ developing-­mind-­control-­weaponry-­that-­could-­break-­enemys-­will-­to-­resist-­558212.html Skinner, B. F. (1976). About behaviorism. Vintage. Sternberg, R. J. (1999). A propulsion model of types of creative contributions. Review of General Psychology, 3, 83–100. Sternberg, R.  J. (2010). The dark side of creativity and how to combat it. In D.  H. Cropley, A. J. Cropley, J. C. Kaufman, & M. A. Runco (Eds.), The dark side of creativity (pp. 316–328). Cambridge University Press. Sternberg, R. J. (2018). A triangular theory of creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 12, 50–67. Sternberg, R. J. (2020a). Transformational giftedness. In T. L. Cross & P. Olszewski-Kubilius (Eds.), Conceptual frameworks for giftedness and talent development (pp. 203–234). Prufrock Press. Sternberg, R. J. (2020b). Transformational giftedness: Rethinking our paradigm for gifted education. Roeper Review, 42(4), 230–240. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2020.1815266 Sternberg, R. J. (2021a). AWOKE: A theory of representation and process in intelligence as adaptation to the environment. Personality and Individual Differences, 182, 111108. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.paid.2021.111108 Sternberg, R. J. (2021b). Positive creativity. In A. Kostic & D. Chadee (Eds.), Current research in positive psychology (pp. 33–42). Palgrave Macmillan. Sternberg, R. J. (2021c). Transformational creativity: The link between creativity, wisdom, and the solution of global problems. Philosophies, 6, 75. https://doi.org/10.3390/philosophies6030075 Sternberg, R. J. (2022). Transformational creativity. In V. Glaveanu (Ed.), Palgrave encyclopedia of the possible. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­3-­319-­98390-­5_259-­1 Sternberg, R. J. (2023a, July 18). Transformational creativity. Talk presented at the 3rd Annual Conference of Possibility Studies. Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland. Sternberg, R.  J. (2023b). Toxic giftedness. Roeper Review. https://doi.org/10.1080/0278319 3.2022.2148311 Sternberg, R. J., Chowkase, A., Desmet, O., Karami, S., Landy, J., & Lu, J. (2021). Beyond transformational giftedness. Education Sciences, 11, 192. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11050192 Sternberg, R.  J., & Davidson, J.  E. (1982, June). The mind of the puzzler. Psychology Today, 16, 37–44. Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1995). Defying the crowd: Cultivating creativity in a culture of conformity. Free Press. Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. (2022). Beyond defiance: An augmented investment perspective on creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.567 Sternberg, R. J., Kaufman, J. C., & Pretz, J. E. (2002). The creativity conundrum: A propulsion model of kinds of creative contributions. Psychology Press. Susanto, E., Novitasar, Y., Syamsu, Y., & Ilfiandra, N. (2018). Development of creative personality inventory. International Journal of Creativity and Change, 4(2) https://www. researchgate.net/publication/301142362_Development_of_Creative_Personality_Inventory_ CPI_Hypothetical_Concept Mayo Clinic Health System. (2021, September 2). Debunking COVID-19 myths. https://www.mayoclinichealthsystem.org/hometown-­health/featured-­topic/covid-­19-­vaccine-­myths-­debunked Torrance, E. P. (1974). Torrance tests of creative thinking: Norms-technical manual. Scholastic Testing Service. Torrance, E. P. (2008). Torrance tests of creative thinking: Norms-technical manual. Scholastic Testing Service. Wallach, M., & Kogan, N. (1966). Modes of thinking in young children. Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

Chapter 3

Teaching for Transformational Creativity: Fostering a Principled Approach to Creative Action Ronald A. Beghetto

How can educators provide more opportunities for young people to exercise their creative agency? Addressing some version of this question has been a persistent goal in the field of creativity studies (Beghetto & Kaufman, 2016; Guilford, 1950). The perceived value of teaching for creativity, however, has often been viewed with unchecked optimism by creativity researchers and other proponents of creativity. Indeed, viewing creativity as inherently positive is somewhat naive and may even be dangerous (see Sternberg & Karami,current volume). Creative expression is not neutral, and the consequences of creativity are not always beneficial (Moran, 2016; Moran et  al., 2014). Rather, creativity can result in a host of negative and unintended consequences and can even be used for malevolent ends (Kapoor, 2023). As we find ourselves in the rapidly advancing age of Artificial Intelligence (AI), the stakes are even higher. Although it is true that AI can amplify positive benefits of human creativity, it can also pose significant threats to humanity.1 Unchecked enthusiasm and unprincipled approaches to creativity thereby take on added emphasis in the age of Artificial Intelligence. As a result, the central question for creativity researchers working in educational settings has evolved. It is no longer solely about providing more opportunities for young people to exercise and develop their creative abilities, but rather, How can we teach them to take creative action in a more principled and transformational manner? This chapter explores this question.

 Debates regarding the potential benefits and harms of increasing AI capacity continue to intensify among proponents and opponents (see Andreessen, 2023; Yudkowsky, 2023). 1

R. A. Beghetto (*) Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2024 R. J. Sternberg, S. Karami (eds.), Transformational Creativity, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-51590-3_3

29

30

R. A. Beghetto

The chapter opens with a discussion of creative agentic action, including the kinds of experiences that activate our creative agency, what goes into our decision to take creative action, and possible consequences that follow from those actions. The focus then shifts to discussing how researchers can help educators teach students to take a more principled approach when making decisions about whether to exercise their creative agency. This approach involves teaching young people to understand and clarify the motives behind their creative actions, as well as to monitor the consequences of those actions. The ultimate goal of this approach is to encourage young people to pursue transformational creativity (Sternberg, 2021, 2023; Sternberg & Karami, current volume), instead of using their creativity for self-serving or potentially harmful purposes. The implications of this approach for creativity research and educational practices are also discussed.

A Principled Approach to Creative Action We all have the potential to think and act creatively (i.e., in new and meaningful ways). Creative action can thereby be thought of as an innate human possibility. It is a survival instinct. If we were not able to think or act creatively when it is necessary to do so, then our species would have no chance of survival. That said, thinking or believing we can act creatively in a particular situation does not, of course, mean we actually will be able to do so. Indeed, there are various individual (e.g., lack of motivation, lack of relevant domain knowledge) and socio-cultural factors (e.g., ridicule or punishment from peers and authority figures) that can impede or suppress our ability to take creative action. Moreover, even when we are capable of acting creatively, it doesn’t mean we always can or should exercise that ability (Kaufman & Beghetto, 2013). This is where teaching can play an important role. Like any capacity we possess, young people can learn how to get smarter and more intentional in how and when they exercise their creative agency (Zielińska et al., 2022). And teachers can play a key role in helping to ensure that young people not only recognize their creative capacity but learn how to use it responsibly. Responsibly exercising our creative agency has been called ‘principled creativity’ (Beghetto, 2023; Beghetto & Anderson, 2022). This concept directs our creative efforts toward more positive and transformational outcomes for ourselves and for others (Sternberg, 2021; Sternberg & Karami, current volume ). The central argument presented in this chapter is that creativity researchers can help educators support young people in taking a principled approach to their motives, decisions, creative actions, and consequences of those actions. A principled approach can be thought of as a responsibility to oneself and others. In this way, it aspires toward positive creative transformations. For the sake of simplicity, this responsibility is reflected in the question: “What are my responsibilities to myself and others?” Young people can be taught to pose

3  Teaching for Transformational Creativity: Fostering a Principled Approach…

31

this question anytime they approach an opportunity for creative action and throughout the process of taking and monitoring their creative actions. In order to understand how teaching can support a more intentional and principled approach to creative action, we need to first take a step back and take a closer look at the nature of creative action itself. The process model depicted in Fig. 3.1 provides one way to conceptualize principled creative action. As depicted in Fig. 3.1, the model highlights four key facets of creative action: creative catalysts, creative agency beliefs, agentic decisions, and creative consequences. These facets are based on prior theory and research, which describe the conditions, motives, decisions, and consequences of creative action (Bandura, 1997; Beghetto, 2023; Karwowski & Beghetto, 2019; List, 2019; Sternberg  and Karami, current volume). Figure 3.1 also includes a depiction of the various points along the process where the principled reflective question—What are my responsibilities to myself and others?—can be posed by young people. Each of these facets and how the principled reflective question can be invoked within and across these facets are briefly discussed in the sections that follow.

Creative Catalysts The model depicted in Fig. 3.1 highlights how creative action starts with an encounter with uncertainty. There are various types of uncertainty (Beghetto, 2023), ranging from temporary and mundane (e.g., What should I order at this new restaurant?) to indefinite and profound (e.g., What is the meaning of life?). The types of uncertainty which serve as catalysts for creative action are those that we feel compelled to resolve.

Fig. 3.1  Principled process model of creative agentic action

32

R. A. Beghetto

These ‘creatively actionable uncertainties’ can range from: an artist’s desire to create something new in the world, but not being sure what that new thing will be; an individual experiencing a personal crisis without being sure how to resolve it; to a group of scientists attempting to solve a highly complex global problem. There are, at least, two aspects of uncertainty that catalyze creative action. First, the uncertainty needs to be disruptive enough to motivate us to resolve it. Indeed, there is a long-standing tradition in the psychology of human motivation that describes how resolving the discomfort that we experience from uncertainty is a primary motivator for human action (Festinger, 1957; Kagan, 1972). Second, the uncertainty needs to provoke a state of genuine doubt, where our typical forms of reasoning and habitual behaviors are insufficient for resolving it. The early American Pragmatists, namely John Dewey and Charles Peirce, have argued that this state of genuine doubt is the only time that we engage in creative inquiry and generate new ways of thinking and acting (Dewey, 1910; Peirce, 1958). This is because, under states of genuine doubt, our typical forms of thought and action are inadequate for resolving the uncertainty we encounter. Thus, we are moved into a state of creative reasoning aimed at alleviating the uncomfortable doubts we feel. Taken together, these two features of uncertainty compel us to creatively resolve the discomfort we are experiencing. Different people, will of course, have different thresholds for perceiving uncertainty as creatively actionable (Beghetto, 2023). Some people, like professional creators, may be able to induce creatively actionable uncertainty in themselves by engaging in creative problem finding. A novelist might start each new book with a somewhat ambiguous situation, which provides sufficient room for creative exploration and experimentation when writing the book. A team of engineers who push the boundaries of their work might view setbacks and unintended outcomes as opportunities to explore new directions or applications of their failed products. Other people might feel heightened uncertainty only when their regular methods or approaches become ineffective. A person who is laid off from a corporate management job may be forced to explore how they might creatively apply their knowledge, interest, and skills to a new career as a management consultant. A company, whose services are now easily replaceable by technological advancements, may have to creatively adapt to survive as a business. Kodak is an example of such a company that had to pivot. Following bankruptcy in 2012, Kodak shifted from a focus on photography to an image printing, advanced materials, and chemical company. Although the company does not have the massive market presence it once had, the transformation enabled it to remain in operation. Still others may experience a deep sense of uncertainty that they want to resolve, but may not feel capable of addressing it and, instead, defer their creative agency to others. In certain circumstances, delegating creative action to others may be more beneficial (e.g., when another person has more expertise or experience navigating a potentially dangerous situation) or harmful (e.g., resulting in over dependence on others, abrogating responsibility to help others when it is possible to do so).

3  Teaching for Transformational Creativity: Fostering a Principled Approach…

33

Consequently, it is important that young people learn how to approach encounters with actionable uncertainty with a principled ethos. This ethos has a goal of helping young people view uncertainty as an opportunity to potentially produce transformational outcomes for themselves and others. As will be discussed in the sections that follow, this ethos also involves guiding young people to make principled decisions on when taking action is more advantageous compared to deferring it to others. In this way, a principled approach to uncertainty involves helping young people learn to avoid the temptation to quickly resolve uncertainty by deferring it to others or by taking hasty actions. And, instead, be willing to take the time necessary to explore the potential creative opportunities provided by the uncertainties they face in learning and life. In sum, a principled approach to experiencing the uncertainty of genuine doubt demands new ways of thinking and acting to resolve it. However, not all encounters will result in creative action. Instead, we must first determine whether we can, should, and will take creative action. This determination is informed by our creative agency beliefs, which is the focus of the section that follows.

Creative Agency Beliefs As mentioned, we have an opportunity to exercise our creative agency whenever we encounter uncertainty. The question then becomes, what influences our decisions to take creative action? Although there are many individual, situational, and environmental factors that inform this question, one key factor is our creative agency beliefs. Creative agency beliefs represent a core feature of our creative identity (Karwowski & Beghetto, 2019; Beghetto et al. 2021 ) and can be thought of as being composed of at least three interrelated beliefs: creative confidence beliefs (i.e., perceived confidence in our ability to take creative action), creative value beliefs (i.e., perceived value in taking creative action), and creative risk-taking beliefs (i.e., the willingness to take the risks necessary for creative action). These three beliefs are reflected in the ‘agentic questions’ (Beghetto, 2023) depicted in Fig. 3.1. Each question can be approached from a principled ethos with an aim for transformational creative outcomes: • Can I take creative action? This first agentic question reflects our creative confidence beliefs. Prior research has demonstrated how people who otherwise have the potential and competence necessary to take creative action likely will not exercise that potential unless they also feel confident that their creative actions will be successful (Bandura, 1997). Determinations about our confidence to take creative action in a given situation are based on a host of factors, including prior experiences, perceived social supports, physiological state, and the specific nature of the creative task at hand. Consequently, two students who have similar

34

R. A. Beghetto

levels of general creative confidence may respond differently to the uncertainty encountered in a specific situation. It is thereby important that educators and young people understand how situational features can differentially impact ­creative confidence beliefs and the importance of providing and seeking out additional support to take creative action when it is beneficial to do so. • Should I take creative action? This second agentic question reflects our creative value beliefs. Prior research has demonstrated that even if individuals possess the potential and confidence to take creative action, they are likely to defer creative action to others if they do not see the value in doing so (Karwowski & Beghetto, 2019). In this way, creative value beliefs serve as a moderator between creative potential and creative action Moreover, the question of whether to act gets at the heart of a principled approach to creative decision making, because it requires us to consider the potential benefits and hazards to others and ourselves. Answering this question goes beyond making decisions based on our interests (e.g., I can write a creative poem, but I’m not interested in doing so) and, instead, reflects a more ethical decision-making process (e.g., should I try to do something new that can potentially benefit others and myself?). Teaching young people to approach this question from a principled ethos can therefore help them consider their core values, social commitments, and the possible outcomes of initiating or deferring creative action. • Will I take creative action? This question reflects our creative risk-taking beliefs. Much like creative value beliefs, prior research has demonstrated that the willingness to take creative risks plays an important moderating role in determining whether people who are otherwise capable and confident in taking creative action will choose to do so (Beghetto et al., 2021). This makes sense given that all creative actions are somewhat risky (e.g., they may not work out, they may result in unintended consequences, they may be harmful to others and to us), it is important that young people learn how to assess the potential benefits and hazards to themselves and others prior to taking (or deferring) creative action. Indeed, choosing not to take creative action even when it is beneficial to doing so poses risks to oneself and others (e.g., diminishing our creative agency; not helping when we can do so). Teaching for transformational creativity encourages students to take the time necessary to weigh the costs and benefits of their actions, and make judicious decisions about taking risks, which can lead to positive outcomes for themselves and others. Taken together, these three questions represent the types of beliefs that can influence our decision to exercise or withhold our creative agency when faced with uncertainty. These three questions also highlight key aspects of principled creative action that educators can focus on when teaching young people how to decide whether to take creative action to produce transformational creative outcomes.

3  Teaching for Transformational Creativity: Fostering a Principled Approach…

35

Agentic Decisions Taking creative action is a decision (Sternberg, 2002, 2003). Figure 3.1 highlights two potential decisions influenced by our creative agency beliefs: ‘Take creative action’ or ‘Defer creative action’. As discussed, deferring creative action can result in a negative response to any of the three agentic questions. Conversely, the model posits that responding in the affirmative to each of the three agentic questions is necessary for us to decide to take agentic action. In this way, responding in the affirmative to each agentic question can be thought of as increasing the chances of taking creative action, but does not guarantee action. That said, there are situational factors that may impede or prevent us from taking creative action even if we believe we can, should, and will act. These can range from extreme time constraints, limited resources, lack of support, to personal factors like lack of necessary knowledge and skills, health issues, and social barriers such as dismissal or prevention of our creative ideas and actions by others (Bandura, 1997). Along similar lines, just because we decide to take creative action with the goal of making a positive transformation to others and ourselves does not guarantee such an outcome (Baert, 1991). Consequently, it is important to teach young people to approach creative actions that can influence themselves and others in a principled manner. This involves recognizing that all creative actions represent a decision among various possibilities. In this way, creative agentic action represents a form of pragmatic possibility thinking (Beghetto, 2023). Pragmatic possibility thinking refers to generating actionable possibilities and involves two key forms of actionable thought: ‘What if?’ thinking and ‘What if-not’ thinking? ‘What if?’ thinking refers to generating actionable possibilities for how to resolve uncertainties we face (including the possibility of deferring action to others). Young people can be supported in learning how to generate and receive feedback on possibilities for how they might creatively resolve uncertainty from a principled perspective. Indeed, when generating possibilities and providing feedback, a key consideration is the likelihood of leading to a positive, transformational outcome for oneself and others. Young people can then be supported in identifying the most viable possibilities for creative action. Before acting on these options, young people need to learn about the importance of ‘what if-not?’ thinking, ensuring they anticipate potential negative outcomes (e.g., What if this solution doesn’t address the problem? What if it makes the problem worse?). This second component of pragmatic possibility thinking can help to prevent ‘innovator bias’ (Reece et al., 2023), which refers to unchecked enthusiasm about an idea, action, or product that may result in negative or harmful consequences. It can also prepare young people to monitor outcomes and foster a willingness to explore different, more effective alternatives to increase the chances of achieving positive creative results.

36

R. A. Beghetto

Creative Consequences Creative consequences represent the fourth and final element of the process model depicted in Fig. 3.1. At least four categories of creative consequence types are identified (based on Sternberg & Karami,  curren volume): malignant creativity (i.e., creativity that is intended to be harmful), transactional creativity (i.e., creativity that represents a quid pro quo exchange of creative effort for personal gain), transformational creativity (i.e., creativity for the betterment of oneself and others), and inert creativity (i.e., not taking creative action when one otherwise has the ability to do so). These four types of consequences and the typology on which they are based (Sternberg & Karami, current volume ) underscores the idea that consequences of our creative actions are, at some level, under our control. This assertion is at the basis of all agentic accounts of human action. As List (2019) has argued, the exercise of one’s agency reflects a three-part capacity we all possess: • The capacity to act intentionally, • The capacity to choose between alternative possibilities, and • The capacity to control our actions. Although it is true that there are extraneous internal and external factors that can suppress our agency, it is also true that whenever we take creative action we are doing so intentionally. This is because we are exercising control over our own behaviors by generating and selecting among various possibilities for how to respond to the uncertainties we face. We thereby are responsible for such actions and the consequences of those actions. This is an important insight because it underscores the ethical dimension of creativity. When teaching transformational creativity from a principled perspective, it is important that young people learn that exercising their own creativity is not simply a neutral human reflex, but rather an intentional act. Young people can thereby recognize that their motives matter when it comes to how they exercise their creative agency aimed at resolving the uncertainties they face. This includes resisting the temptation to use their creativity to harm others out of spite or anger (i.e., malignant creativity), act only in self-serving ways (i.e. transactional creativity), avoid acting when it is important to do so (i.e., inert creativity) and strive to take actions that are wise and beneficial to themselves and others (i.e., transformational creativity). One way this can be taught is to discuss examples and cases of how creativity has been used and misused in ways that are harmful to others. This also includes an understanding that even creative decisions that appear beneficial initially may lead to harmful, unintended consequences. Moreover, the consequences of creative action are not necessarily fixed. There is a temporal and socio-contextual dimension of creativity (Kaufman & Beghetto, 2023), which acknowledges that judgments about creativity can change

3  Teaching for Transformational Creativity: Fostering a Principled Approach…

37

over time and different contexts. Indeed, what was once viewed as positive or even transformational can later be viewed as no longer beneficial and or even dangerous. It’s therefore important to educate students to anticipate the potential for changing perceptions of their creative actions over time and across different audiences. This means teaching them to proactively monitor and contemplate possible alternatives for addressing any negative side-effects of their creative efforts.

Implications for Teaching Transformational Creativity There are at least ten implications to consider when teaching for transformational creativity, which are summarized below. • Orient Students Toward Transformational Creativity—Educators can guide students toward transformational creativity by aiding them in recognizing the importance of their motives for creative action. This involves supporting them in focusing on producing creative outcomes that can directly benefit themselves and others, rather than simply focusing only on self-serving benefits or using creativity in potentially harmful ways. This can be achieved by directly discussing the concept of transformational creativity and by stressing this intended outcome as a goal of any creative activities in and beyond the classroom. For example, when I was directing Innovation House at the University of Connecticut, my team and I would encourage students to find ill-defined problems that they cared about and then work to creatively solve those problems. Additionally, we emphasized that their efforts should ultimately contribute to the greater good. A similar guideline can be employed at any level of creative and innovative projects from K-12 to higher education. • Cultivate A Principled Approach to Creativity—Educators can foster a principled approach to creativity by assisting students in regularly assessing the potential impact of their creative actions on themselves and others. This can be accomplished by having students actively consider the question of, “What are my responsibilities to myself and others?” throughout the process of creative decision making and creative action. Students working on creatively addressing concerns about bullying at their school, for instance, can be taught to consider the perspectives and responsibilities they have to everyone involved. When generating potential solutions, students can be supported in actively considering the potential positive and negative consequences of the various proposed solutions prior to selecting one for implementation. • Teach Students to Embrace Uncertainty—Educators can guide students to embrace uncertainty by emphasizing that creativity serves as a catalyst for creative action. In this way, uncertainty motivates change. Uncertainty is not something to be feared, avoided, or quickly resolved. Rather, it serves as an opportunity for creative learning, which can result in transformational benefits to others and to oneself. Students working on addressing the problem of food waste in their

38

R. A. Beghetto

school cafeteria may feel uncertain about how to address this problem. Instead of viewing this problem as unsolvable or rushing toward the first solution offered, teachers can help students to sit with the uncertainty of the problem and view it as an opportunity to explore various possible solutions. One way they can do this is seek feedback from more knowledgeable people in their school, families, and communities. In the age of generative AI, this can also include using custom large language models to help them generate and consider various possibilities (while still maintaining their human agency over the process). Doing so can help them explore ideas and perspectives that they otherwise would not have considered— increasing the chances of identifying a solution that can be implemented in their school. • Foster Healthy Creative Agency Beliefs—Educators can help young people foster healthy creative agency beliefs by supporting them in developing their confidence in their own creative abilities, the value and responsibilities inherent in taking creative action, and the willingness to take the risks necessary to produce creative outcomes. Educators can use the questions highlighted in this chapter to help students actively consider if they can, should, and will take creative action when trying to resolve uncertainties they face in learning and life. Consider, for example, a group of students interested in coming up with a way to clean up a community park near their school. The teacher can help foster creative agency beliefs through this process by helping them consider a realistic plan that they can implement (Can we do this?), develop a compelling rationale for implementing this plan that benefits not just them but the entire community (Should we do this?), and cultivating the willingness to to take action by considering the costs and benefits, including anticipating any obstacles that they might face along the way (Will we do this?). • Support Pragmatic Possibility Thinking—Educators can help students learn how to engage in ‘what if?’ thinking to generate actionable possibilities and ‘what if-not?’ thinking to actively anticipate potential negative consequences of their actions. Doing so will encourage them to exercise their creative agency in a more principled way. Consider a group of high school students interested in providing new shoes at the start of the school year for elementary students in need. The teacher could first encourage students to engage in ‘what if?’ thinking to generate a variety of possibilities. After students have selected and refined a promising possibility, the teacher can help them proactively consider and address potential negative consequences before implementation. This approach supports the development of pragmatic possibility thinking, which is essential for transformational creativity. • Cultivate Sensible Risk-Taking—Given that all creative action is inherently risky, educators can help students assess the potential benefits of taking creative action to themselves and others in light of the potential hazards. This can go a long way in helping students learn how to take more reasonable risks and increase the chances that their efforts will result in more positive creative outcomes. Consider, for example, a group of students in a middle school health class who want to promote healthier lunch options. At first, these students might overlook

3  Teaching for Transformational Creativity: Fostering a Principled Approach…

39

p­ otential drawbacks due to their excitement. In such cases, the teacher plays a critical role in guiding students to consider potential risks. These risks might include resistance from other students who prefer tastier yet less healthy options, budget limitations, increased costs, and broader challenges, such as obtaining school board approval. It is important for the teacher to help students navigate these potential challenges without becoming overwhelmed or discouraged. Instead, these challenges should be viewed as opportunities for  collaboration and creative problem solving. • Encourage Openness and Responsiveness to Feedback—Producing creative outcomes is rarely a linear or straightforward process (Sawyer, 2013). Educators can support students by emphasizing the importance of being open to feedback and encouraging them to take action based on that feedback. This approach helps ensure that students’ creative efforts result in positive and transformational outcomes. Imagine a group of students in a high school environmental sciences class who wants to clean up trash in a local river. The teacher plays an important role in supporting their effort by involving outside experts and interested partners to provide feedback and suggestions. Collaborating with ‘skilled others’ can ensure that the project is grounded in data and likely to succeed. Additionally, this collaboration can help students learn the value of feedback, even if it slows down or alters their plan. By adopting a principled approach and incorporating outside feedback, students can learn how to increase the chances of success. • Help Students Understand and Accept Responsibility for Creative Consequences—Given that creative action represents an intentional decision, it is important for educators to help students understand and accept responsibility for the consequences of their creative efforts. Educators can use examples and case studies of beneficial and harmful creative outcomes to help students understand the importance of approaching creative endeavors in a more principled way and, ultimately, learn how to assume responsibility for their creative actions. A group of students, who have learned how to make ‘homemade’ soap, wants to create their own soap-making business and donate a portion of their proceeds to a local charity. To assist students in accepting the responsibilities associated with such an endeavor, their teacher can gather examples and case studies of small start-up businesses. This can include inviting small business owners to visit the class and share their stories of success and setbacks. By doing so, students can learn how to prepare for and accept the various responsibilities involved in launching a business, including obligations to customers, investors, and the local charity. This approach also helps students prepare for potential successes, setbacks, and even the possibility of their soap-making business failing. • Consider Temporal and Socio-Cultural Dimensions of Creative Consequences—Educators can assist students in recognizing that assessments about the value of creative outcomes can vary over time and across different socio-­cultural contexts. They can support their students in anticipating and adapting to these changes. One way teachers can do this is through the use of examples that demonstrate how various creative outcomes have changed with time and in different contexts. Teachers can then lead a discussion of these changes and help

40

R. A. Beghetto

young people explore and come up with other examples of the influence of time and context on the stability of creative outcomes. By doing so, students can learn the importance of communicating the potential limitations of their contributions to others, and work toward addressing evolving needs and expectations. Consider a middle school teacher who has started a ‘creative problem solving’ club. The purpose of the club is to teach students how to find ill-defined problems that they want to creatively solve. One problem the students decide to address is student isolation. They develop a plan to establish school-wide activities to promote more positive relationships among students and foster a sense of belonging. Their sponsoring teacher can assist them by considering the temporal and social cultural dimensions of such an endeavor. This might be achieved through researching similar initiatives at other schools. By doing so, students can identify relevant aspects and potential modifications for their current project and specific school context. Additionally, they can develop a plan to anticipate and evaluate their initiative over time and explore how it can be shared, adapted, and modified for other schools in their city. • Monitor and Reflect on Creative Consequences—Finally, it’s important that educators assist young people in learning to monitor and reflect upon the consequences of their creative actions. Doing so will help students to make necessary adjustments and apply what they learned to future creative endeavors. Consider a group of elementary students and their teacher who developed a school garden project to donate fresh produce to a local food kitchen. The teacher helped in developing a plan for times when they were not in school such as winter and summer break. This was necessary because the garden wasn’t being maintained , resulting in wasted food. The teacher also guided them on adapting to this challenge and reflecting on what they had learned. They were then able to share this knowledge with a group of younger students who will be taking over the project in the next year.

Conclusion This chapter emphasized the need to move beyond simply increasing opportunities to support young people’s creative expression and toward adopting a more principled and transformational approach to creativity in educational settings. As discussed, creativity should not be viewed as neutral but rather as an intentional act that can lead to both potentially beneficial and potentially negative, unintended consequences. This principled approach involves cultivating creative agency beliefs, fostering ‘what if’ and ‘what if-not’ thinking, embracing sensible risks, being receptive to feedback, assuming responsibility for creative outcomes, and monitoring the results of one’s creative efforts. The ultimate goal of this approach is to empower students to exercise their creative agency and strive toward making significant transformations now and into their futures.

3  Teaching for Transformational Creativity: Fostering a Principled Approach…

41

References Andreessen, M. (2023). Why AI will save the world. https://a16z.com/2023/06/06/ ai-­will-­save-­the-­world/ Baert, P. (1991). Unintended consequences: A typology and examples. International Sociology, 6, 201–210. https://doi.org/10.1177/026858091006002006 Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Freeman. Beghetto, R., & Kaufman, J. (Eds.). (2016). Nurturing creativity in the classroom (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316212899 Beghetto, R.  A. (2023). Uncertainty x design: Educating for possible futures. Cambridge University Press. Beghetto, R. A., & Anderson, R. C. (2022). Positive creativity is principled creativity. Education Sciences, 12(3), 184. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12030184 Beghetto, R.  A., Karwowski, M., & Reiter-Palmon, R. (2021). Intellectual risk taking: A moderating link between creative confidence and creative behavior? Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 15(4), 637–644. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000323 Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. D.C. Heath and Company. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Row, Peterson. Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5, 444–454. Kagan, J. (1972). Motives and development. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 22, 51–66. Kapoor, H. (2023). Shining a light on dark creativity. Creativity Research Journal. https://doi.org/1 0.1080/10400419.2023.2224689 Karwowski, M., & Beghetto, R.  A. (2019). Creative behavior as agentic action. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 13(4), 402–415, 743. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000190 Karwowski, M., Lebuda, I., & Beghetto, R. (2021). Creative self-beliefs. In J.  Kaufman & R. Sternberg (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of creativity (Cambridge handbooks in psychology) (pp. 396–418). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316979839.021 Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2013). In praise of Clark Kent: Creative metacognition and the importance of teaching kids when (not) to be creative. Roeper Review: A Journal on Gifted Education, 35(3), 155–165. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2013.799413 Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2023). Where is the when of creativity?: Specifying the temporal dimension of the four Cs of creativity. Review of General Psychology, 27(2), 194–205. https://doi.org/10.1177/10892680221142803 List, C. (2019). Why free will is real. Harvard University Press. Moran, S. (2016). Ethical ripples of creativity and innovation. Palgrave Macmillan. Moran, S., Cropley, D., & Kaufman, J. (Eds.). (2014). The ethics of creativity. Palgrave Macmillan. Peirce, C. S. (1958). Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. Vols. 5–8 (A. W. Burks, Ed.). Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Reece, A.  G., Eubanks, A.  D., Liebscher, A., & Baumeister, R. (2023). Enforcing pragmatic future-mindedness cures the innovator’s bias. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. https:// doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12956 Sawyer, K. (2013). Zig Zag: The surprising path to greater creativity. Wiley. Sternberg, R.  J. (2002). Creativity as a decision. American Psychologist, 57, 376. https://doi. org/10.1037/0003-­066X.57.5.376a Sternberg, R.  J. (2003). The development of creativity as a decision- making process. In R.  K. Sawyer, V.  John-Steiner, S.  Moran, R.  J. Sternberg, D.  H. Feldman, J.  Nakamura, & M. Csikszentmihalyi (Eds.), Creativity and development (pp. 91–138). Oxford University Press. Sternberg, R. J. (2021). Transformational creativity: The link between creativity, wisdom, and the solution of global problems. Philosophies, 6, 75. https://doi.org/10.3390/philosophies6030075

42

R. A. Beghetto

Sternberg, R.  J. (2023). Toxic giftedness. Roeper Review, 45(1), 61–73. https://doi.org/10.108 0/02783193.2022.2148311 Yudkowsky, E. (2023). Pausing AI developing isn’t enough. We need to shut it all down. https:// time.com/6266923/ai-­eliezer-­yudkowsky-­open-­letter-­not-­enough/ Zielińska, A., Lebuda, I., Ivcevic, Z., & Karwowski, M. (2022). How adolescents develop and implement their ideas? On self-regulation of creative action. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2022.100998

Chapter 4

A Life Story Perspective on the Nexus of Creativity and Wisdom Susan Bluck and Kiana Cogdill-Richardson

Sternberg (2021) has identified several types of creativity, including transactional and transformational. Fully transactional creativity involves cases in which the individual acts creatively largely because they are employed or otherwise expected to do so. In contrast, in fully transformational creativity, the individual seeks to exert their creative capacities to positively, meaningfully contribute to the common good. The issues facing nations and indeed the planet at this time, and possibly throughout history, may require increased manifestation of transformational creativity. In this chapter we take a life story approach (Habermas & Bluck, 2000; McAdams, 2001), viewing individuals’ unfolding life story as the nexus of their lived experience of creativity and wisdom. Doing so results in three major issues to be considered: (i) the extent to which wisdom and creativity should be combined in the construct of transformational creativity, (ii) how individuals in the second half of life might reflect on their life story when having lived a life of transactional versus transformational creativity, and (iii) how young adults shaping their future life story may manifest transformational creativity in the face of normative developmental pressures.

 ransformational Creativity: A Marriage of Wisdom T and Creativity Sternberg’s (2021) definition of transformational creativity connotes that it is creativity employed wisely. Wisdom is invoked in his definition because in transformational creativity, one’s creativity is applied in the world in ways that aid the common S. Bluck (*) · K. Cogdill-Richardson University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2024 R. J. Sternberg, S. Karami (eds.), Transformational Creativity, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-51590-3_4

43

44

S. Bluck and K. Cogdill-Richardson

good. As such, Sternberg’s (this volume) use of the wisdom construct in defining transformational creativity is fitting and useful. Wisdom researchers have defined wisdom as multifaceted but with general agreement that it centrally includes concern for the common good (e.g., Weststrate et al., 2019). That said, if transformational creativity is truly to be a marriage of creativity and wisdom, it is important to consider not only the common-good element of wisdom. In this section, we critically examine whether there are additional aspects of wisdom that might be used to further conceptually hone the construct of transformational creativity. Several models of wisdom exist (e.g., Three-Dimensional Wisdom Model; Ardelt, 2003; Berlin Wisdom Paradigm, Baltes & Smith, 2008) that propose unique facets of wisdom but also share a common core of elements essential to the construct (Bluck & Glück, 2005). For current purposes in considering wisdom’s relation to creativity in transformational creativity, we use the MORE life experience model (Glück & Bluck, 2013). The MORE Wisdom model is grounded in a life story perspective (McAdams, 2001), emphasizing how wisdom is developed through lived experience and autobiographical reasoning (Habermas & Bluck, 2000) about one’s own life. This process includes experiencing life events, positively coping with them at the time of occurrence, and later reflecting on them to coherently integrate them into one’s life story. Those with MORE wisdom are adept at extracting lessons from life and using their past to direct their future. In the MORE model, wisdom is grounded by four attributes: mastery, openness, reflection, and emotion-regulation/empathy. Each attribute is defined here and then critically considered as important for, or not particularly relevant to, the view of transformational creativity as a marriage of creativity and wisdom. Mastery involves having necessary expertise and confidence in tackling life challenges and adapting to life situations. Mastery may be important to transactional creativity: having expertise can promote generation of creative ideas within a given area (Baer, 2015). Greater mastery will not necessarily, however, foster greater engagement in transformational creativity pursuits that aim to make the world a better place. That is, while mastery and creativity may be generally related, this attribute of wisdom is not critical to transformational creativity. The second attribute, openness, involves willingness to acknowledge multiple perspectives combined with an inclination to learn from new experiences. Individuals high in openness possess heightened interest in understanding goals and values different from their own. Past research suggests that high openness (Costa & McCrae, 2008) is associated with both Little-c and Pro-c accomplishments (Carson et  al., 2005; Silvia et  al., 2014). Beyond that, in relation to transformational creativity, openness is a broad-minded approach that may encourage considering one’s creative efforts in relation to myriad viewpoints and doing so in the context of the larger world. As an example, Martin Luther King, Jr. was open to and drew from Gandhian philosophy, including principles of non-violence, when developing creative strategies for mobilizing American civil rights activists in the 1950s and 1960s. He was able to speak well to large audiences, and remained open to how others might perceive his goals and ideas. His visionary ideas resonated strongly with

4  A Life Story Perspective on the Nexus of Creativity and Wisdom

45

audiences, catalyzing many to become committed to peaceful protest to achieve meaningful social change. In sum, the openness attribute from the MORE Wisdom model seems relevant to add to the conceptualization of transformational creativity. Being reflective is another attribute of wisdom in the MORE Wisdom Model. This entails willingness to examine complex life issues and strive for deep, nuanced understandings of one’s experiences and one’s life. Reflective thinking has been noted as relevant to creativity in general (Akpur, 2020): reflective skills are often needed to spur individuals to establish novel connections among ideas. Beyond that, being reflective about one’s experiences and one’s life may be another aspect of wisdom to include in the construct of transformational creativity. A reflective attitude involves willingness to think about the complexity of issues for the sake of deeper understanding and not just reassurance of one’s own views (Glück et  al., 2019). Being highly reflective about life and world issues can lead to considering how one’s own creative pursuits might relate to larger societal concerns. Highly reflective individuals remember and reason about past experiences, often doing that to guide future trajectories of thought and action, including how the world might prosper once they are gone (e.g., legacy; Hunter & Rowles, 2005). Consider Yvon Chouinard, who made the unprecedented move in 2022 to transfer ownership of his $3-billion outdoor clothing retail company, Patagonia, to a nonprofit aimed at combatting world climate change (Gelles, 2022). Reflective thinkers like Chouinard deeply consider how their own creative actions might contribute to the greater good. The slogan on the Patagonia website, https://www.patagonia.com currently reads: “For our 50th year, we’re looking forward, not back, to life on Earth. Together, we can prioritize purpose over profit and protect this wondrous planet, our only home.” The final attribute of wisdom in the MORE model is emotion regulation, with a particular focus on empathy. Emotion regulation is not generally related to creativity. Empathy, however, may be a necessary motivator of transformational creative pursuits. The classic conception of empathy is as an affective process involving experientially sharing the emotional experience of others (Hume, 1777/1966). Empathy involves feeling into other’s worlds, having concern for the welfare of others. Empathy may be felt for known others but, important for transformational creativity, it may also extend beyond one’s close friends or family to those one has not met. Individuals with heightened empathy may be more likely to work creatively to enact change in the world because they are more personally sensitive to human suffering. Empathy thus should also be considered as an element of wisdom useful in further conceptualizing transformational creativity. In sum, transformational creativity (Sternberg, 2021) is a bold new construct of use for examining how humans can move forward to shape positive change that benefits the common good. Taking a life story approach to wisdom, using the MORE Wisdom Model (Glück & Bluck, 2013), we suggest that a full marriage of creativity and wisdom may involve not only the common good aspect of wisdom but fuller inclusion of wisdom attributes: openness to experience, reflectivity, and empathy. Moving on from these conceptual issues regarding the nature of transformational creativity, the life story approach is also useful for understanding how transformational creativity may be experienced as part of one’s life. The next section addresses

46

S. Bluck and K. Cogdill-Richardson

how individuals in the second half of life may reflect on their life story when having lived a life of transactional versus transformational creativity.

 eflecting on One’s Life Story: Remembering Transactional R vs. Transformational Creativity In the second half of life, there is a general tendency for individuals to gain a sense of awareness that amount of time passed in their life may be greater than the time left (Neugarten, 1973). The understanding that human life is finite, but more poignantly that one’s own life will have an ending, may come into greater focus (Bluck & Mroz, 2018). This may not be true for every individual but is a trend in the second half of life. The recognition of the finitude of life, the awareness of limited time left (Carstensen et al., 1999), prompts people to face the late life developmental task of life evaluation. They must now review, with the hope of being able to accept, how they have chosen to live (Butler, 1963). As part of this evaluation, individuals increasingly reflect on issues of personal generativity. Generativity is the concern for and commitment to the well-being of future generations that often first arises in midlife (McAdams & Logan, 2004). Clearly, looking back in later life, one’s creative endeavors across a lifetime form part of this consideration of the extent of one’s past generativity and prosocial behavior. Engagement in life reflection is not only a process but suggested to have outcomes (Erikson, 1959): it may result in either a felt sense of positive integrity about the life lived or, in contrast, despair that one may have squandered one’s time on earth and there is little or no time left to remedy that situation. One contributor to feeling a sense of satisfaction or integrity regarding the life lived may be the extent to which one’s transformational creativity has been expressed. One’s generative actions for the common good, indeed for generations who will live on when one is gone, can then be considered one’s personal legacy (Hunter & Rowles, 2005). Many personal and societal factors come into play, however, that lead individuals to a life in which, if creativity is manifest to any extent at all, it is manifest as transactional creativity.

 eflecting on One’s Life Story: Transactional Creativity R as Legacy Developmental tasks across adult life phases involve adapting to life through creating a place for oneself in society (Arnett et al., 2020; Erikson, 1959). That includes striving to develop an adult identity, finding a romantic partner, potentially raising children, and training for and thriving in an occupational niche (Baltes et al., 1999). Most individuals thus reasonably focus on becoming adjusted to life, as it unfolds

4  A Life Story Perspective on the Nexus of Creativity and Wisdom

47

across decades, with the hope of meeting normative societal standards for success in prescribed roles (e.g., family and work life). Adequate normative adjustment is, in fact, seen as a prerequisite for further growth-oriented pursuits (Reitz & Staudinger, 2017). This focus on adjustment to normative roles, sometimes in the face of personal or economic challenges, may influence individuals to live lives in which they largely manifest transactional creativity so as to be, and be considered, successful adults. Fulfilling such norms for adjustment in one’s given society, of course, depends on a particular culture’s definition of success. Though conceptualized in many ways (Bauer, 2021), a successful life, or good life, is often defined as “a life of luxury, pleasure and material comfort” (Oxford English Dictionary, 2019). That is, though a variety of ways of considering progress through life exist, success is often considered hedonically (Oishi et al., 2020) in our current sociohistorical context, including being wealthy or famous or both. Taken together, normative developmental pressures in tandem with current societal views of success may shape how individuals exhibit creativity in their lives. Current definitions of success in American society (Bluck et al., 2022) may encourage individuals, if manifesting creativity at all, to manifest transactional creativity. Such creativity is rewarded: one receives compensation (e.g., money) or recognition (e.g., fame). Indeed, individuals who show Big-C transactional creativity in societally valued industries are often highly paid and well-known across the country or the globe. This includes movie actors and actresses, popular music icons, famous novelists, and some top-performing business entrepreneurs. Most individuals do not hold such positions in life but do demonstrate some level of creativity. Those demonstrating Little-c or Pro-c creativity may not be famous but are likely rewarded for their contributions to a corporation or institution through raises, bonuses, or job security as well as status within their organization or profession. How might this focus on transactional creativity play out when one reviews life, as its end comes into focus? If review of one’s life also follows normative societal lines, then being wealthy and/or famous based on one’s transactional creativity is a positive legacy to leave. Indeed, in our society, individuals who display neither transactional nor transformational creativity still become rich and or famous and that is their legacy. Such a legacy is not generative per se, however, beyond leaving financial resources that pass on to one’s heirs. This legacy does not likely include having benefited the common good with one’s actions (though some individuals leave money to charity on death). Individuals may be completely satisfied, when reviewing their life, to leave such an individualized, family legacy. Indeed, a life of transactional creativity may result in a more satisfying review of one’s life story than a life without creativity at all—which some do live. Some individuals simply may not be particularly creative. Others may live in a context in which their creativity cannot manifest, is suppressed, or is not fostered (unidentified creativity, Sternberg, 2021). The life of transactional creativity and its resultant legacy does not, however, align with the notion of being generative in later life: using one’s own creative resources to affect the common good beyond one’s own family. It thereby leaves

48

S. Bluck and K. Cogdill-Richardson

open the door for an uneasy concern, at the end of one’s life (Erikson, 1959), that one would have liked to have done more for the next generation, been more active in pursuit of the common good, and that now it is too late.

 eflecting on One’s Life Story: Transformational Creativity R as Legacy Despite pressures to adjust to adult life phases through taking on normative social and occupational roles, some individuals still develop truly unique life pathways that demonstrate transformational creativity. For those who have wisely guided their life’s trajectory, their legacy is directly apparent as they look back on their life. They can review a life in which generative actions or products have manifest and they know they will leave a broad, positive, personal legacy once they are gone (Newton & Jones, 2015). Many factors may influence one’s life review and whether it ends in the classic outcomes of integrity versus despair (Erikson, 1959). That said, having lived a life high in generativity through manifesting transformational creativity helps pave the way for a positive life review that ends in feelings of integrity. Those who have exhibited transformational creativity, sometimes over decades of life, may feel that their life has greater purpose (King & Hicks, 2021). Given the societal forces valuing transactional creativity, however, what might guide people to live lives in which they have exhibited transformational creativity in some domain? Concern with legacy often arises later in life, in the face of growing awareness of life’s finitude (Hunter & Rowles, 2005). As such, individuals at any point in adulthood who have a brush with death, awakening their sense of personal mortality, may become more focused on others’ needs and concerns. The experience of a moment when one believed they were going to die evokes anxiety, even when it is remembered years later. Feelings of intimacy or communion with others, however, can soften this concern (Liao & Bluck, 2019). As such, personal experience with death, or more generally with trauma (Frazier et  al., 2013), can focus individuals on creative expression that serves the common good. In line with this, when asked how they want to be remembered when they die (i.e., compared to simply describing the present self), individuals more often mention virtues (Bluck et al., 2022). In particular, individuals across adult life phases reported wanting to be remembered as showing virtues (Peterson & Seligman, 2004) such as humanity (i.e., tend and befriend others more than what is expected) and courage and justice (i.e., act correctly, even when one has much to lose; show prosocial civil goals and the will to accomplish). Some research more directly addresses how creativity is valued culturally. It shows that when individuals believe that creativity is culturally valued in society, they are more likely to stave off personal mortality concerns through being open to novel personal and social exploration, akin to creativity (Routledge & Arndt, 2009). A real-world example of an individual prompted by illness to consider their

4  A Life Story Perspective on the Nexus of Creativity and Wisdom

49

mortality is the well-known American actor, Michael J. Fox. In an interview with Variety, Fox states that he regards his 1991 Parkinson’s disease diagnosis as a gift that sparked compassion in him for others, leading to the establishment of the Michael J.  Fox Foundation (Saval, 2018). Fox’s diagnosis catalyzed his creative energy into activism: facilitating research aimed at curing Parkinson’s and helping maintain quality of life for those living with the disease. Life experiences beyond a personal brush with death may also play a role. Those who experience serious health issues in, or loss of, close others may be prompted to engage in life review, regardless of their age (Butler, 1963). For those who are open and reflective, this may be a turning point in the life story (Cappeliez et al., 2008): a time at which priorities change and they re-set their course in life toward activities that show greater concern for others (e.g., Lehman et al., 1993). Individuals who are less reflective may focus on coping with difficult events at the time they occur but not strive to learn lessons or find personal growth through later reflection on those events, or integration of such challenges into their larger life story (Bluck & Mroz, 2018; Glück & Bluck, 2013). One example of taking a reflective stance is Candace Lightner, whose daughter Cari was killed by a drunk driver in California. Reeling from grief, Candace turned her focus in life not only to memorializing her daughter in a creative way, but one that served the common good. She founded Mothers Against Drunk Driving in 1980, with the mission: To aid the victims of crimes performed by individuals driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, to aid the families of such victims and to increase public awareness of the problem of drinking and drugged driving (MADD, n.d.). The organization still exists today, more than forty years later. A common thread for those who engage in, and can then look back on, a life of transformational creativity may be the development of a sense of purpose in life. Purpose sometimes develops due to early life background factors and other times emerges later in life through experiencing loss or challenge (Sharma & Bluck, 2022). A sense of purpose is defined as having “goals, intentions, and a sense of direction” in life (Ryff, 1989, p. 1071). It not only provides intentionality in one’s behavior across time but involves pursuit of goals aimed at fulfilling a greater good (Damon et al., 2003). Purpose may be at work in individuals engaged in artivism: social activism to transform the world through creative arts (Shapiro, 2020). In sum, looking back on a life of transformational creativity in alignment with one’s purpose to serve a common good is likely to result in a relatively satisfying life review. Research on older adults’ sense of purpose suggests it acts as a protective factor in resilience and that those with higher purpose have greater well-being (Windsor et  al., 2015). Some researchers have shown that when retrospectively viewing one’s life as having purpose, even considering it from the point of view of a classic hero’s journey, older adults show improved sense that their life was meaningful (Rogers et al., 2023).

50

S. Bluck and K. Cogdill-Richardson

 harting the Life Story Ahead: Transformational Creativity C in Young Adulthood In this final section, the life story approach is used to consider how young adults shaping their future life story trajectory may manifest transformational creativity in the face of normative developmental pressures. While the life story has more past than future chapters in later life, the life-time horizon for young adults reflects their relatively early place in the lifespan. That is, young adults have a much larger, more open future time perspective (Carstensen et al., 1999; Demiray & Bluck, 2014) and are focused on setting future goals and plans that will guide their life trajectory (Baltes, 1987; Ebner et al., 2006). Normative pressures in this life phase are to take on an adult identity (Arnett et al., 2020) by developing an occupational pursuit as well as creating a romantic partnership. That is, there are not, in the classic developmental literature (e.g., Erikson, 1959; Neugarten, 1973), obvious developmental tasks guiding young adults to strive for a life of creativity or wisdom or both. Of course, there are certain individuals who show transformative creativity from early in adulthood. More commonly though, serving the common good through transformational creativity is at least partially sublimated in favor of forging an independent identity and setting oneself up for a normatively successful life story. Youth across historical time, not only the current generation of young people (i.e., Generation Z) wrestle with whether and how they will lead lives of creative transformation. We review research here that focuses on young adults in the current historical moment. That said, young adulthood is a time of exploration for each new cohort of younger people (Arnett et al., 2020) though how that exploration manifests may be shaped by the larger values in the world in which they are coming of age (Braedon et al., 2021; Erikson, 1959). For example, despite the normative pressures of emerging and young adulthood, some recent research suggests the current cohort of young adults may be implicitly aware of a new master narrative (McLean & Syed, 2016) that focuses not only on finding an occupation but on finding meaningful work or a purpose in life. Braedon et al. (2021) employed a Q-sort analysis to categorize young adults’ responses to 42 statements about their ideal workplace (e.g., importance of working in a company with high ethical standards). The researchers identified three subgroups that they named chill worker bees, social investors, and go-getters. Despite these intragenerational groupings, all three groups highly valued working for companies with high moral and ethical standards. Though the study did not control for social desirability effects, creating moral and ethical codes in organizations may help individuals fulfill goals to express their transformational creativity as part of their workplace experience. The study also shows that the social investors group shows a desire for their work to have a societal impact and go-getters focus on creating positive societal impacts while also seeing the workplace as a place for personal development. Both orientations fit well with a drive toward transformational creativity as part of one’s

4  A Life Story Perspective on the Nexus of Creativity and Wisdom

51

occupational life. This is encouraging, though must be tempered with realism given that past cohorts have also started adulthood with strong, hopeful ideals that were not fully manifest. Indeed, the Baby Boom generation (born 1946–1964), known as a group for their engagement in social change-related movements in their youth, have gone on to have relatively low life satisfaction across adulthood (compared to other age cohorts) and relatively negative views of America’s future (Cohn & Taylor, 2010). If we are to encourage young adults to pursue transformational creativity focused toward the common good, and to continue that work across adulthood, structural barriers to doing so will need to be reduced. This is an age-old issue faced by previous cohorts of young adults who may have started life with a mission to improve the world but been side-tracked by pragmatic concerns. In the current cohort of young people, there is some evidence that they are motivated to pursue work that serves a meaningful purpose (Barhate & Dirani, 2022). Particularly, they report an inclination to working with and helping others. They also note, however, that low salaries have been a barrier to truly engaging in this type of work given the rising costs of living. To foster transformational creativity at any time in history, including for future generations, existing social structures must be reformed in ways that enable individuals to contribute to the common good while simultaneously meeting basic living needs. Despite the challenges of taking on a life of transformational creativity, some young adults have done so, and taken the world stage in recent times. Two leaders have gained an international following, both of whom were partially motivated to become social change leaders due to implicit or explicit threats of mortality. This includes now famous Greta Thunberg of Sweden who acted on her feelings that the planet is dying through conducting a hunger strike and ended up leading a worldwide multimillion person movement against climate change (Sengupta, 2019). The second very well-known example is Malala Yousafzai of Pakistan, who was shot and severely injured on her way home from a school exam. Yousafzai’s story, later published as a book, I am Malala (Yousafzai & Lamb, 2013), captivated the world. She received the Nobel Peace Prize for championing the right of all children to education (Nobel Prize, 2014). Young people are engaging in creative transformation, however, aside from the rather famous cases of Greta and Malala. Though of course not all, many of these individuals were also spurred to action through events that increased their awareness of human mortality. We provide here three such examples of creative social activism occurring outside and within a work context. After the Marjory Stoneman Douglas Highschool fatal shooting of 17 students in Parkland, Florida (History.com Editors, 2020), a group of students used their creative resources to call for tighter gun control, coordinate a walkout, and organize nationwide protests. Their organization, March for Our Lives, is still active (March for Our Lives, n.d.). In a 2022 tweet, representative David Hogg wrote: I am so proud of my generation. Seeing the explosion of Gen Z activism over the past couple years has been such a cool thing to see. We aren’t letting our future die in front of us (Hogg, 2022). His statement represents the passion and drive often held by the

52

S. Bluck and K. Cogdill-Richardson

youth segment of a given society, across history, to be part of forging a better future for all. As a second example, Apolonia Rockwell, a young American woman, was deeply affected by the tragic passing of a classmate’s father in an industrial accident. This prompted her to establish True Safety Services, a minority- and woman-­ owned company committed to providing essential resources for the safety and protection of construction, oil, and gas workers (Forbes, 2022). Finally, Bethany Hamilton, a young American professional surfer, encountered a devastating setback when she had a near-death encounter with a 14-foot tiger shark. Bethany lost an arm in the attack but returned to the waves. She now serves as a powerful inspiration through her work as an author and motivational speaker, spreading a message of resilience, courage, and hope (Mackey, 2022). This includes reaching out to teen amputees through her foundation, Friends of Bethany. Greta Thunberg, Malala Yousafzai, and many other young adults such as these are essential models who illustrate real world ways in which youth can exhibit transformational creativity. While our focus in this section has been on the youth of today, older individuals who focused on transformational creativity when in their youth may have stayed the course across adulthood or been side-tracked by other priorities, lack of systemic support, or personal life events. One example of an individual who began a life of transformational creativity in his youth and maintained it across his life, is Bob Hunter, Canadian journalist and co-founder of Greenpeace (n.d.). Though founding this organization was a communal effort, Bob Hunter stands out as central. In 1970, at age 29, emboldened by the threat of nuclear weapons, and their testing, on human populations and the earth, he envisioned the Don’t Make a Wave Committee. The sole objective was to take action to stop nuclear weapons testing in the Aleutian Islands. That committee, by 1972, was configured into what is now the long-­standing non-profit environmental organization, Greenpeace. On their site, remembering Bob Hunter, the text reads: “Combining creativity with strategic thinking and a hard-nosed journalistic sense for a good story, he helped to shape—perhaps like no other founding member—what would come be known, around the world, as a Greenpeace action” (Greenpeace, n.d., Bob Hunter section). Greenpeace is now an international organization operating in over fifty countries. Their mission is to help forge the way toward a greener, more peaceful world, and to confront systems that threaten the earth’s environment. Bob remained an environmental activist throughout his life through his journalistic endeavors (Parks Canada, 2022). As reviewed earlier, in the second half of life or when nearing its end, individuals may feel the need to engage in transformational creativity as a generative act, to leave a personal legacy. In youth however, the environmental press to leave a legacy is not writ large because the future feels open-ended. Many youth do not engage in the innovative social justice activities, or other forms of transformational creativity that leaders like Thunberg and Yousafzai have done in today’s younger generation, or Bob Hunter did as a young man in the 1970s. One possibility, common across our examples, is that the recognition of life’s finitude and fragility (due to environmental threats or witnessing personal-political violence) partially prompted their engagement.

4  A Life Story Perspective on the Nexus of Creativity and Wisdom

53

Following that line, for other youth, who do not have first-hand experience of life’s fragility, initiatives may be useful that help them grasp that their lifespan is finite, that the future is not limitless but they are in control, as agent and author, of their own future life story (McAdams, 2013). In that regard, death education and awareness initiatives (e.g., Before I Die Walls, Chang, n.d.; Death over Dinner; Mroz et al., 2022) may be a way to further foster young adults’ tendency toward engaging in the world in meaningful ways. For example, Before I Die walls, https:// beforeidieproject.com/ are a global art project that invite individuals to reflect on their mortality and consider the things that matter most in life. Death over Dinner (https://deathoverdinner.org/) is an interactive process that entails talking about death with others as a route to engagement, insight, and empowerment. Initiatives are being developed to teach wisdom (Bruya & Ardelt, 2018) and creativity in schools and universities. Our analysis of transformational creativity suggests that particular aspects of wisdom, such as openness, reflection, and empathy, may be of particular importance in fostering transformational creativity. Initiatives to encourage transformational creativity may include learning inside or outside the classroom (i.e., service learning). That might include the death education initiatives above as well as intergenerational volunteer programs that bring younger people intimately into contact with older adults, including those reaching life’s end (i.e., in hospice or palliative care). Such initiatives may provide didactically to the young the knowledge that older adults have gained through their own life experience: that every story, every life, has an ending. This may help young adults, who are just beginning to develop a life story (Habermas & Bluck, 2000) set future life strivings that go beyond normative self-focused (i.e., transactional) concerns in the hope of themselves reaching life’s ending with a sense that they are leaving a legacy. Though complex to achieve in the face of normative structural barriers, such initiatives may help in some small way to set young adults up, from the start of life, to value and embrace transformational creativity pursuits.

Conclusion Transformational creativity is a marriage of creativity and wisdom: it involves seeking to exert one’s creative capacities to positively, meaningfully contribute to the common good (Sternberg, 2021). Our analysis suggests that transformational creativity may include other attributes of wisdom, beyond a focus on the common good, including openness, reflectivity, and empathy. In addition, the life story approach (Habermas & Bluck, 2000; McAdams, 2001) was used to examine how individuals in the second half of life, and those just beginning adulthood, may be confined by developmental tasks and societal pressures, or encouraged by a strong sense of purpose in life, to engage in transformational creativity. Doing so, one life at a time, may begin to turn the tide on a variety of pressing problems facing our shared world and our common planet.

54

S. Bluck and K. Cogdill-Richardson

Acknowledgment  We would like to acknowledge the contribution of Hope Schroeder in assembling and reviewing literature on young adults and transformational creativity. Correspondence concerning this chapter should be sent to Susan Bluck, Box 112250, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA. Email: [email protected].

References Akpur, U. (2020). Critical, reflective, creative thinking and their reflections on academic achievement. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 37(1), 100683. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100683 Ardelt, M. (2003). Empirical assessment of a three-dimensional wisdom scale. Research on Aging, 25(3), 275–324. https://doi.org/10.1177/0164027503025003004 Arnett, J. J., Robinson, O., & Lachman, M. E. (2020). Rethinking adult development: Introduction to the special issue. American Psychologist, 75(4), 425–430. https://doi.org/10.1037/ amp0000633 Baer, J. (2015). The importance of domain-specific expertise in creativity. Roeper Review: A Journal on Gifted Education, 37(3), 165–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193. 2015.1047480 Baltes, P.  B. (1987). Theoretical propositions of life-span developmental psychology: On the dynamics between growth and decline. Developmental Psychology, 23(5), 611–626. https:// doi.org/10.1037/0012-­1649.23.5.611 Baltes, P.  B., & Smith, J. (2008). The fascination of wisdom: Its nature, ontogeny, and function. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(1), 56–64. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1745-­6916.2008.00062.x Baltes, P.  B., Staudinger, U.  M., & Lindenberger, U. (1999). Lifespan psychology: Theory and application to intellectual functioning. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 471–507. https://doi. org/10.1146/annurev.psych.50.1.471 Barhate, B., & Dirani, K. M. (2022). Career aspirations of generation Z: A systematic literature review. European Journal of Training and Development, 46(1–2), 139–157. Bauer, J. J. (2021). The transformative self: Personal growth, narrative identity, and the good life. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199970742.001.0001 Bluck, S., & Glück, J. (2005). From the inside out: People’s implicit theories of wisdom. In R.  J. Sternberg & J.  Jordan (Eds.), A handbook of wisdom: Psychological perspectives (pp. 84–109). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511610486.005 Bluck, S., & Mroz, E. L. (2018). The end: Death as part of the life story. The International Journal of Reminiscence and Life Review, 5(1), 6–14. Bluck, S., Mroz, E. L., Cogdill-Richardson, K., McDarby, M., & Carpenter, B. (2022). Even the good life has an ending: Virtue in the face of finitude. Journal of Research in Personality, 99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2022.104238 Braedon, L., Anderson, C., Bickham, C., Horman, J., Overly, A., Gentry, C., Callahan, C., & King, J. (2021). Generation Z perceptions of a positive workplace environment. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 33, 171–187. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10672-­021-­09366-­2 Bruya, B., & Ardelt, M. (2018). Wisdom can be taught: A proof-of-concept study for fostering wisdom in the classroom. Learning and Instruction, 58, 106–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. learninstruc.2018.05.001 Butler, R. N. (1963). The life review: An interpretation of reminiscence in the aged. Psychiatry, Journal for the Study of Inter-personal Processes, 26, 65–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/0033274 7.1963.11023339 Cappeliez, P., Beaupré, M., & Robitaille, A. (2008). Characteristics and impact of life turning points for older adults. Ageing International, 32, 54–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12126-­008-­9005-­4

4  A Life Story Perspective on the Nexus of Creativity and Wisdom

55

Carson, S. H., Peterson, J. B., & Higgins, D. M. (2005). Reliability, validity, and factor structure of the creative achievement questionnaire. Creativity Research Journal, 17(1), 37–50. https://doi. org/10.1207/s15326934crj1701_4 Carstensen, L. L., Isaacowitz, D. M., & Charles, S. T. (1999). Taking time seriously. A theory of socioemotional selectivity. The American Psychologist, 54(3), 165–181. https://doi.org/10.103 7//0003-­066x.54.3.165 Chang, C. (n.d.). Before I Die. Retrieved December 2019 from https://beforeidieproject.com/ Cohn, D., & Taylor, P. (2010, December 20). Baby Boomers Approach 65—Glumly. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-­trends/2010/12/20/ baby-­boomers-­approach-­65-­glumly/ Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (2008). The Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R). In G. J. Boyle, G. Matthews, & D. H. Saklofske (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of personality theory and assessment, Vol. 2. Personality measurement and testing (pp. 179–198). Sage Publications, Inc.. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849200479.n9 Damon, W., Menon, J., & Bronk, K.  C. (2003). The development of purpose during adolescence. Applied Developmental Science, 7(3), 119–128. https://doi.org/10.1207/ S1532480XADS0703_2 Demiray, B., & Bluck, S. (2014). Time since birth and time left to live: Opposing forces in constructing psychological wellbeing. Ageing & Society, 34, 1193–1218. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0144686X13000032 Ebner, N. C., Freund, A. M., & Baltes, P. B. (2006). Developmental changes in personal goal orientation from young to late adulthood: From striving for gains to maintenance and prevention of losses. Psychology and Aging, 21, 664–678. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-­7974.21.4.664 Erikson, E. H. (1959). Identity and the life cycle: Selected papers. Psychological Issues, 1, 1–171. Forbes. (2022). Apolonia Rockwell. Retrieved June 20, 2023 from https://www.forbes.com/profile/ apolonia-­rockwell/?sh=7962ce1a651d Frazier, P., Greer, C., Gabrielsen, S., Tennen, H., Park, C., & Tomich, P. (2013). The relation between trauma exposure and prosocial behavior. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 5(3), 286–294. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027255 Gelles, D. (2022, September 21). Billionaire no more: Patagonia founder gives away the company. The New  York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/14/climate/patagonia-­climate-­ philanthropy-­chouinard.html Glück, J., & Bluck, S. (2013). The MORE Life Experience Model: A theory of the development of personal wisdom. In M. Ferrari & N. Weststrate (Eds.), The scientific study of personal wisdom. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­94-­007-­7987-­7_4 Glück, J., Bluck, S., & Weststrate, N. M. (2019). More on the MORE Life Experience Model: What we have learned (so far). The Journal of Value Inquiry, 53(3), 349–370. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10790-­018-­9661-­x Greenpeace. (n.d.). Founders. Retrieved June 20, 2023, from https://www.greenpeace.org/ international/explore/about/founders/ Habermas, T., & Bluck, S. (2000). Getting a life: The emergence of the life story in adolescence. Psychological Bulletin, 126(5), 748–769. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-­2909.126.5.748 History.com Editors. (2020). Teen gunman kills 17, injures 17 at Parkland, Florida high school. HISTORY. https://www.history.com/this-­day-­in-­history/ parkland-­marjory-­stoneman-­douglas-­school-­shooting Hogg, D. [@DavidHogg111]. (2022, August 28). I am so proud of my generation. Seeing the explosion of Gen Z activism over the past couple of years [Tweet]. Twitter. https://twitter.com/ davidhogg111/status/1564068517292511234 Hume, D. (1966). Enquiries concerning the human understanding and concerning principles of morals (2nd ed.). : Clarendon. (Original work published 1777). https://doi. org/10.1016/0022-­3999(66)90009-­2 Hunter, E. G., & Rowles, G. D. (2005). Leaving a legacy: Toward a typology. Journal of Aging Studies, 19(3), 327–347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaging.2004.08.002

56

S. Bluck and K. Cogdill-Richardson

King, L. A., & Hicks, J. A. (2021). The science of meaning in life. Annual Review of Psychology, 72, 561–584. Lehman, D. R., Davis, C. G., DeLongis, A., Wortman, C. B., Bluck, S., Mandel, D. R., & Ellard, J. H. (1993). Positive and negative life changes following bereavement and their relations to adjustment. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 12(1), 90–112. https://doi.org/10.1521/ jscp.1993.12.1.90 Liao, H., & Bluck, S. (2019). Remembering stressful autobiographical events: Differential roles of future time perspective and intimacy in experiencing anxiety. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 34, 228–240. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3613 Mackey, M. (2022, October 24). Surfer Bethany Hamilton of Hawaii pushes past fear, takes on new adventure. Fox News. https://www.foxnews.com/lifestyle/ surfer-­bethany-­hamilton-­hawaii-­pushes-­fear-­takes-­adventure MADD. (n.d.). History. https://madd.org/our-­history/ Malala Yousafzai Facts. (n.d.). NobelPrize.org. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/2014/ yousafzai/facts/ March for Our Lives. (n.d.). Take action with us. Retrieved June 20, 2023, from https://marchforourlives.com/actions/ McAdams, D.  P. (2001). The psychology of life stories. Review of General Psychology, 5(2), 100–122. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-­2680.5.2.100 McAdams, D.  P. (2013). The psychological self as actor, agent, and author. Perspectives on Psychological Science: A Journal of the Association for Psychological Science, 8(3), 272–295. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612464657 McAdams, D. P., & Logan, R. L. (2004). What is generativity? In E. de St. Aubin, D. P. McAdams, & T.-C.  Kim (Eds.), The generative society: Caring for future generations (pp.  15–31). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10622-­002 McLean, K. C., & Syed, M. (2016). Personal, master, and alternative narratives: An integrative framework for understanding identity development in context. Human Development, 58(6), 318–349. https://doi.org/10.1159/000445817 Mroz, E., Bluck, S., & Smith, K. (2022). Young adults’ perspectives on advance care planning: Evaluating the Death over Dinner initiative. Death Studies, 46(2), 381–390. https://doi.org/1 0.1080/07481187.2020.1731015 Neugarten, B.  L. (1973). Personality change in late life: A developmental perspective. In C.  Eisdorfer & M.  P. Lawton (Eds.), The psychology of adult development and aging (pp. 311–335). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10044-­012 Newton, N.  J., & Jones, B.  K. (2015). Passing on: Personal attributes associated with midlife expressions of intended legacies. Developmental Psychology, 57, 341–353. https://doi. org/10.1037/a0039905 Nobel Prize. (2014). Malala Yousafzai Facts. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/2014/ yousafzai/facts/ Oishi, S., Choi, H., Koo, M., Galinha, I., Ishii, K., Komiya, A., Luhmann, M., Scollon, C., Shin, J., Lee, H., Suh, E. M., Vittersø, J., Heintzelman, S. J., Kushlev, K., Westgate, E., Buttrick, N., Tucker, J., Ebersole, C., Axt, J., et al. (2020). Happiness, meaning, and psychological richness. Affective Science, 1, 107–115. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42761-­020-­00011-­z Oxford English Dictionary. (2019). Good life. In oed.com dictionary. Retrieved October 24, 2021, from https://bit.ly/3pRBXXR Parks Canada. (2022, October 12). Bob Hunter: Canadian hero of the environmental movement. https://parks.canada.ca/pn-­np/on/rouge/visit/directions/bob-­hunter/bob-­hunter-­bio Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification (Vol. 1). Oxford University Press. Reitz, A.  K., & Staudinger, U.  M. (2017). Getting older, getting better? Toward understanding positive personality development across adulthood. In J. Specht (Ed.), Personality development across the lifespan (pp. 219–241). Elsevier Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-­0-­12-­ 804674-­6.00014-­4

4  A Life Story Perspective on the Nexus of Creativity and Wisdom

57

Rogers, B. A., Chicas, H., Kelly, J. M., Kubin, E., Christian, M. S., Kachanoff, F. J., Berger, J., Puryear, C., McAdams, D. P., & Gray, K. (2023). Seeing your life story as a Hero’s Journey increases meaning in life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000341 Routledge, C. D., & Arndt, J. (2009). Creative terror management: Creativity as a facilitator of cultural exploration after mortality salience. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(4), 493–505. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167208329629 Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(6), 1069–1081. https://doi. org/10.1037/0022-­3514.57.6.1069 Saval, M. (2018, August 8). Michael J.  Fox on Parkinson’s, overcoming fear and the race for a cure. Variety. https://variety.com/2018/tv/features/ michael-­j-­fox-­parkinsons-­overcoming-­fear-­and-­race-­for-­cure-­1202898240/ Sengupta, S. (2019, September 21). Protesting climate change, young people take to streets in a global strike. The New  York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/20/climate/global-­ climate-­strike.html Shapiro, E.  R. (2020). Liberation psychology, creativity, and arts-based activism and artivism: Culturally meaningful methods connecting personal development and social change. In L.  Comas-Díaz & E.  Torres Rivera (Eds.), Liberation psychology: Theory, method, practice, and social justice (pp.  247–264). American Psychological Association. https://doi. org/10.1037/0000198-­014 Sharma, S., & Bluck, S. (2022). Older adults recall memories of life challenges: The role of sense of purpose in the life story. Current Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-­022-­03439 Silvia, P.  J., Beaty, R.  E., Nusbaum, E.  C., Eddington, K.  M., Levin-Aspenson, H., & Kwapil, T.  R. (2014). Everyday creativity in daily life: An experience-sampling study of “little c” creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8(2), 183–188. https://doi. org/10.1037/a0035722 Sternberg, R.  J. (2021). Transformational creativity: The link between creativity, wisdom, and the solution of global problems. Philosophies, 6(3), 75. https://doi.org/10.3390/ philosophies6030075 Weststrate, N. M., Bluck, S., & Glück, J. (2019). Wisdom of the crowd: Exploring people’s conceptions of wisdom. In R. J. Sternberg & J. Glück (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of wisdom (pp. 97–121). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108568272.006 Windsor, T.  D., Curtis, R.  G., & Luszcz, M.  A. (2015). Sense of purpose as a psychological resource for aging well. Developmental Psychology, 51(7), 975–986. https://doi.org/10.1037/ dev0000023 Yousafzai, M., & Lamb, C. (2013). I am Malala: The girl who stood up for education and was shot by the Taliban (Large print ed.). Little Brown and Company.

Chapter 5

Future-Oriented Thinking: The Creativity Connection Samira Bourgeois-Bougrine, Saphia Richou, Marie Chizallet, and Todd Lubart

Introduction Originally, the future meant “yet to be” but it tends to be defined in relation to “the time that is to come” and “what is going to happen” (Merriam-Webster dictionary). There are four popular, nested classes of futures (Voros, 2017, pp. 10–13): (1) possible futures—those we think ‘might » happen based on knowledge we do not possess yet, but which we might possess someday, (2) plausible futures are those that ‘could’ happen based on our current understanding of the how the world works, (3) probable futures—those we think are ‘likely to’ happen, usually based on current trends and (4) Preferable futures—those we think ‘should’ or ‘ought to’ happen (normative value judgments). Over the course of a day, we devote a great deal of time predicting what would happen, hopping, planning, fearing, imagining, and simulating future events. Future-oriented thinking or prospective thinking is the ability to travel mentally toward the future, to imagine or simulate events that may or may not occur in the future (Bubić & Abraham, 2014). Similar to financial or digital literacy, future literacy can be developed and reinforced so we can decide what to do, make choices, plan, make decisions, etc. UNESCO has been organizing Futures Literacy Laboratories to develop this competency in order to be able to imagine the future, “to better understand the origins of what we imagine, why and how we create the S. Bourgeois-Bougrine (*) · M. Chizallet · T. Lubart LaPEA, Université Paris Cité & Univ Gustave Eiffel, Boulogne-Billancourt, France e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] S. Richou Université Versailles Saint Quentin, Guyancourt, France Prospective Foresight Network, L’Aigle, France e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2024 R. J. Sternberg, S. Karami (eds.), Transformational Creativity, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-51590-3_5

59

60

S. Bourgeois-Bougrine et al.

images of the future, and crucially the powerful influence such images have on our fears and hopes, perceptions and choices”1 (p. 3). From the perspective of foresight studies, future-oriented thinking aims at forecasting, foreseeing, and anticipating the future. Simply put, forecasting deals with data extrapolation, foresight with the visualization of possible futures, and anticipation with their translation into action (Poli, 2022). According to Popper (2008), creativity is evident in the techniques of future studies. Based on his analysis of 886 foresight studies, foresight methods have been characterized as qualitative, quantitative, or semi-quantitative (Fig. 5.1). Creativity methods such as wildcards, back casting, brainstorming, gaming, SWOT analysis, morphological analysis are among the 15 identified qualitative methods. These creativity methods that “deliberately challenge participants to be creative and to ‘think outside the box’ are essential in future scenario building and development” (Jones, 2023, p. 3). From the perspective of psychology and neurocognitive sciences, future-oriented thinking is considered as a ‘higher-order’ cognitive act that has four cognitive modes (Szpunar et  al., 2014, pp.  18415): simulation (construction of a detailed mental representation of the future), prediction (estimation of the likelihood of ­and/

Fig. 5.1  Foresight methods (Popper, 2008) (Popper, R. (2008). How are foresight methods selected?. foresight. 10(6), 62–89)

 https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000374310#:~:text=With%20the%20aim%20of%20 developing%20this%20competency%20amongst,Youth%20Rethink%20the%20Future%20 of%20Wellbeing%20in%202,050%E2%80%9D. 1

5  Future-Oriented Thinking: The Creativity Connection

61

or one’s reaction to a particular future outcome), intention (the mental act of setting a goal), and planning (the identification and organization of steps toward achieving a goal state). It involves systems such as, “autobiographic memory, semantic knowledge, scene construction, mental visualization and spatial processing, emotion, theory of mind, planning and cognitive control” (Rayner et al., 2022, p. 2). As the future does not already exist, we indeed rely on our conceptual knowledge and past experiences to think about the future. Research in neuroscience has indeed consistently shown that the brain regions2 that are involved in thinking about the future overlap those that are involved in thinking about the past. According to Bubić and Abraham (2014) the prospection brain network closely corresponds to the brain’s default mode network which is hypothesized to be involved in spontaneous activation of concepts and experiences from memory, perspective-taking, and envisioning the future. Interestingly, the default mode network is known to support the divergent and open creative process (Bendetowicz et al., 2018; Bourgeois-Bougrine, 2020). Indeed, the findings of domain-specific studies (e.g. creative writing, visual art making, melody improvisation, etc.) and psychometric tasks highlight the fact that creativity does not rise from a conceptual void but from on-going knowledge base development and personal past experiences (Abraham, 2018; Madore et al., 2016). Individuals accumulate a collection of knowledge and routines, which must be both readily accessible and flexibly organized to meet any situational demand. Conceptual knowledge is represented within an extensive semantic network in memory, with direct and strong connections between closely related concepts (e.g. Bees-Honey or Table-Chair). Although memory access and retrieval are critical to creativity, evidence suggests that it can also hamper original idea generation leading to cognitive fixedness (Beaty et al., 2017; Agnoli et al., 2020). If we consider that creative thinking involves the skill to make non-obvious connections in order to generate previously unknown solutions (Sternberg, 1997), an excessive strength in semantic associations, could lead to fixation on the strong associates and result in difficulties to transcend or to inhibit overlearned response, stereotypical associations or salient concepts (Bendetowicz et al., 2018). One of the most important questions in future-oriented thinking is how to support creativity to promote the generation of various potential futures? To answer this question, we will provide in the following sections an account of various approaches that stimulate creativity. The first set of approaches is based on the authors’ previous experiences in conducting future-thinking workshops in the context of foresight studies and prospective ergonomics dedicated to sustainability. The second type of approach will describe the use of virtual reality to promote collaborative creative future-oriented thinking.

 medial prefrontal cortex, medial parietal cortex, anterior lateral temporal cortex, inferior parietal cortex, and medial temporal lobe structures (Bubić & Abraham, 2014). 2

62

S. Bourgeois-Bougrine et al.

 uture-Oriented Thinking: Creativity in the Service F of Sustainability Sustainability would seem to be a relevant topic for future-oriented thinking, because it involves “ development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (WCED Brundlant Report, 1987). Anticipation of future practices must be based on consideration of three pillars: environmental, economic, and social, and aim for a fair balance between these pillars (Elkington, 1998). This leads to an important question of time: how can we think about practices for the future, in relation to current needs, based on experience already gained? In other words, how can we be good ancestors? asked Roman Krznaric3when he described the future “like a distant colonial outpost devoid of people, where we can freely dump ecological degradation, technological risk, nuclear waste and public debt.” (Krznaric, 2020). Experts in foresight and prospective ergonomists have been involved in creative future-oriented thinking about the legacy we will leave to our children’s children. Transformational creativity is of the utmost importance when thinking of making the world a better place for the future generations. Indeed, several reasons (e.g. financial gain and gain of power) can lead individuals to develop a negative creative activity. This would then lead to the creation of unethical practices in order to maximize profits or to respond to a strong desire for success. By positioning ourselves in a context of sustainable development, and more particularly with actors in the field of agro-­ ecological transition, we believe that the creativity developed is based more on a vision of positive and constructive creativity: for the actors themselves (through the implementation of a positive creative activity the actor develops on different aspects: learning, creation of new resources) and for the common good (through the implementation of a positive creative activity actor participates in the development of a sustainable common good that does not harm future generations). In this sense, transformational creativity is integrated with sustainability “to make a positive, meaningful, and potentially enduring difference to the world” (Sternberg, 2021, p. 3). It is then a question of supporting this creativity so that it is “fully transformational,” that is to say that the actors in the field “benefit both others and themselves through their creativity [and that they can] “contribute to others without sacrificing or inadver-tently destroying their own lives” (Sternberg, 2021, p. 7). Based on the authors work on sustainability (Richou, 2017; Chizallet et al., 2023), we will address the interconnections between creativity and foresight using examples of the agricultural transition to sustainable practices.

 https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190318-can-we-reinvent-democracy-for-the-long-term

3

5  Future-Oriented Thinking: The Creativity Connection

63

 reative Co-opetition to Reach a Common Goal: The Future C of Cereals Production Co-opetition, refers to cooperating with a competitor to achieve a common goal or gain an advantage. Since three decades,4 this innovative and forward-thinking approach encourages both competition and cooperation, so that companies can enhance their competitiveness.5 Co-opetition applies to organizations of all types and sectors as they grapple with the need for collaboration and integration. In the case of Intercereales, co-opetition is an essential part of the cereal industry’s strategic actions, given intense international competition. For France to maintain its position as the world’s fifth-largest wheat exporter, after Russia, United States, Canada, and Ukraine, it must innovate in varietal research and optimize the supply chain while adhering to stringent health requirements. Only a co-opetition strategy can enable this. Over the past fifteen years, this transformative creativity has superseded traditional methods of rational engineering-based anticipation, which focused on logic, technique, and progress. The goal is no longer to predict the future or rely on immutable laws of change that are regularly challenged. Instead, we must place trust in human imagination and foresight to prepare for potential futures, transcending conventional frameworks of the world.6 This framework poses a complex challenge for prospectivists. They are well aware of its limitations, wary of its pitfalls, and envision potential breakthroughs. They understand that human memory, whether referred to as prospective when driven by intentions or episodic when shaping our ability to mentally stimulate future events, relies heavily on episodic representations of past experiences as well as semantic knowledge about the world and oneself. The concept of time is another issue faced by futurists. The examination of temporalities takes center stage in anticipatory thinking. The reality and implications of linear time, which humans have constructed to envision the future, are now subject to debate. Concurrently, in the face of climate change and its consequences, the cyclical patterns of nature are resurfacing and serve as a guiding compass for anticipation and action. This is why, both as researchers and practitioners, we have focused on linking foresight and creativity. The objective is to widen the field of possibilities for unexpected futures based on weak signals. It has become imperative to dismantle the barriers that restrict our memories and our relationship to time, in order to anticipate alternative and desirable futures. In our “research intervention” on the future of the Fédération Française des Céréales (French Federation of Cereals) by 2020, an organization that brings together stakeholders involved in the production, marketing, and primary processing of cereals, we conducted a retro-prospective survey to examine the underlying  The Rules of Co-opetition (hbr.org).  Saphia Richou, Coopetition en action, Edition Dunod, 2017. 6  S. Richou (2011) Que. peut-on apprendre de l’inattendu en prospective, In D. Bourcier and P. van Andel (Eds), La sérendipité, le hasard heureux, Editions Hermann. 4 5

64

S. Bourgeois-Bougrine et al.

structures of the sector. Members from the three sectors (production, markets, processing) were brought together to assess the influence of past sector representations. Additionally, we aimed to evaluate the future co-opetition capabilities of actors whose objectives were largely divergent. A first workshop entitled “How to inspire others in the work group to learn about and understand your profession” facilitated the meeting between members of this interprofession and the discovery of the variety of professions they represented. For the stakeholders in the industry, supported by common culture and values, the success of the sector lies in its ability to believe in the future and in its companies that drive the sector’s economy and create wealth. The completion of a SWOT questionnaire for each link in the interprofessional space, as well as an integrated version representing the entire industry, confirmed the strength of the culture and common values of cereal producers and identified determinants favoring the development of new synergies for the future. A second workshop on “Intercereal Vision in 2020” highlighted the keywords that structure the discourse and actions of the members of the interprofessional space: dialogue, consultation, coherence, services, solidarity, confrontation, meetings, construction, funding of activities, expansion of the scope of intervention, research, promotion, guidance, regulation, skills, references, status, observation, networks, professions, crisis management, prevention, support, lobbying, statistics, representation, foresight, anticipation, regulation, reflection, collective intelligence, social, and communication. By creating a transitional space that enables a detached perspective from the subject being studied, the workshop allows for a shift in one’s field of vision and listening capacity toward a transitional space between the imaginary and the real. It encourages paying particular attention to the gaps, shadows, and silences from which new ideas can unfold and be reinvented. A workshop on “Anticipating Disruptions”, which examines abrupt and significant changes that strongly impact the evolution of one or more variables in the system being studied, allowed us to identify irreversible changes that surprise cereal producers and transform their future. Climate change’s impact on certain cereal varieties serves as a good example. Once the initial shock of realizing these disruptions subsides, the question becomes how to turn them into opportunities for the future. It is the role of the prospectivist to use their methods and toolbox to drive change and bring forth new solutions. It is precisely at this stage that foresight aligns with creativity, the individual ability to generate something new, in order to facilitate the emergence of previously unrepresentable possible futures. What the futurist seeks by harnessing creativity is a means to develop participants’ creative capacity in foresight workshops and assist them in inventing representations of the future that are neither grounded solely in known reality (otherwise, what’s the point) nor in unrealistic imagination (otherwise, why bother) (Richou, 2017). To achieve this, foresight workshops incorporate techniques of detour (distortion, forced encounters, projective, dreamlike, or visual techniques) and analogies. This creative work adds an additional layer of creative ideas to the basic scenario

5  Future-Oriented Thinking: The Creativity Connection

65

method and generates other possibilities that remain invisible. This combination of skills provides futurists with a better understanding of possible futures in an increasingly dynamic world, where the factors of change and inertia are swept away by those of disruption. This exploratory foresight led to a strategic foresight, giving rise to a Strategic Orientation Committee, which was further structured during a fourth workshop in terms of its objectives, resources, and upcoming actions. A process of institutionalized synergy emergence took place in seven steps which were anticipating the decision, institutional diagnosis, strategic prospective, elaboration of strategic co-opetition, definition of co-opetition objectives, putting in action the plan, evaluation of strategic co-opetition. This transformative foresight and creativity process has led to a historic interprofessional agreement on setting the protein content of soft wheat at 11.5%. This agreement on the quality and protein content of soft wheat was designed to “promote, through the systematic consideration of the protein criterion in contractual relationships within the industry, the quality and value of soft wheat, in order to meet the demand of both domestic and international markets (milling, animal feed, starch, and other users).” It reflects on commitment to anticipating varietal research, promoting good agricultural practices, training cereal stakeholders, and disseminating decision-making tools and support systems (OAD). Renewed annually for the past ten years, it actively contributes to maintaining the competitiveness of the French cereal industry on the international stage and ensures that French soft wheat remains competitive in global markets. According to Kaufman and Beghetto’s four-c model of creativity (2009), the creativity deployed during our strategic foresight process was of the Pro-c creativity (professional-level creativity) type. Taking place over a long period of time, by 2020, this positive creativity was able to emerge and solve certain challenges in the cereal industry. This exercise was not only beneficial for Intercéréales as an institution that brings its members together around common goals. Beyond institutional gains, we must consider the gains perceived by all stakeholders in the industry. The agreement on the protein content of wheat will have a positive impact on cereal farmers, cereal processors, livestock breeders, international traders, and the consumers in the industry, thus contributing to the common good of French agriculture. This transformative creativity is the result of what the members of the interprofessional group have made of it, a true advantage for the benefit of a better world.

 rospective Ergonomics and Creativity: Supporting P a Projection Toward Greener Practices On a micro scale, the context of sustainable development raises the question of how to support people in the process of designing new objects and practices for the future that contribute to a more sustainable world. This support can be approached

66

S. Bourgeois-Bougrine et al.

from research on creativity. The aim is to support the creativity of those involved in the design of objects or practices that are socially equitable, economically viable and do not harm the environment or the health of living beings. More specifically, some sustainable development stakeholders find themselves in situations where they have to question their practices, know-how, and way of thinking about their work. This is the case, for example, of farmers undergoing agroecological transition (Nicourt & Souron, 1989), where creativity can be a vector for success in implementing such a transition. Agroecology relies primarily on the mobilization of biological regulations by farmers (Wezel et al., 2009). It challenges post-war production practices based on robotization and automation. It responds to current concerns about food quality, health, and the environment by maximizing the functionalities offered by ecosystems and preserving natural resources (Wezel et al., 2009). For farmers, the introduction of new, more agroecological practices represents a profound transformation of their work. They engage in a learning process that confronts them with new situations (Chantre & Cardona, 2014). This agroecological transition context reinforces one of the specificities of agricultural work, where farmers are confronted with many uncertain and unpredictable situations (Lemery et al., 2005), such as climatic hazards (Jouve, 2010) or the appearance of diseases that can infect crops and herds. To cope with these situations, farmers need to adapt, anticipate, and be imaginative in developing alternatives to the use of chemical inputs (Wezel et al., 2009). This presents a methodological challenge in terms of supporting these stakeholders in such a complex context, involving societal and environmental issues. With this in mind, a research-intervention was conducted with two cereal growers who were moving to organic farming. This case study highlights two methodological proposals designed to support farmers’ projection into future work situations. The first, called the “Chronicle of Change,” mobilizes different moments in time (past, present and future) to support the design of new work situations for farmers. It enables farmers to project themselves into future work situations, by mobilizing their past experiences in relation to their current concerns. This involves getting farmers to verbalize their objectives, the difficulties they have encountered, and to think about the resources they have at their disposal. The second method, called “Dis-jumble,” puts farmers in the position of designers of their own tools for thinking about the future. This method is anchored more in the objective of anticipating and planning farmers’ work, based on farmers’ actual work. This second method aims to empower farmers to project and anticipate future work situations. If the future cannot be predicted on all these aspects, we believe that these two tools constitute means of helping farmers, and possibly other actors of the agroecological transition, to anticipate many aspects of future work situations. (economic, social, environmental, etc.) (Chizallet et al., 2021). In this way, these tools would facilitate thinking about the future implications of the transformations envisaged at different time scales by farmers and in anticipating the effects of their ideas. The development of these two methods is based on a dialogical model of design widely used in activity-centered ergonomics. This model enables two vectors of reflection to be brought together: the virtual and the real (Bergamini, 1995; Béguin & Bergamini, 1996; Martin, 2000; Béguin, 2010). The first axis, the virtual, refers

5  Future-Oriented Thinking: The Creativity Connection

67

to the will relative to the future (the strategic orientations of a design project, the designers’ representation of the object to be designed and its future use). The second axis, the real, refers to “the performance of action and work” (Béguin, 2010, p. 51). It relies primarily on understanding the activity of workers, the recipients of the object being designed. The tension between these two axes lies in the implementation of the will for the future in the worker’s reality, and vice versa, through the questions this implementation raises in terms of the project’s intended end-results. The two methods: the “Chronicle of Change” and the “Dis-jumble” are designed to support this tension, which Chizallet (2019) and Chizallet et al. (2020) propose to call the “designable.” This tension reflects the exploration of possibilities and the search for feasibility, and more broadly the conditional tense: future (what could happen) and past (what could have happened). The Chronicle of Change method is proposed to farmers and is based on an artifact that encourages farmers to tell their design stories, by making explicit the difficulties, objectives and resources they mobilize—or would like to mobilize—during their agroecological transition. The artifact used for the Chronicle of Change is a chronological timeline running from work system A to work system B, implying the possibility of continuity in the work system, which could become work system C, D, etc. This timeline is completed by colored post-it® notes, enabling farmers to plot their difficulties, objectives and resources in chronological order. The Dis-jumble method is entirely designed by the farmers, with the ergonomist present to lead the workshop without making any suggestions for the tool to be designed. Its aim is: (1) to enable farmers to anticipate their future work situations and revise them in line with actual work, and thus (2) to develop their autonomy in this process. The Dis-jumble should then make it possible to (3) trace this anticipation over time and its revision according to actual work, so that the traces of actual work in turn become a support for anticipating future situations. These two methodological proposals enable farmers to make the most of their ability to identify their needs, the problems they encounter and their objectives, and to construct a variety of solutions or alternatives to meet them. This involves farmers making their concerns explicit, and putting them into perspective with future work situations, in relation to their past experiences. More precisely, farmers navigate through the three moments of time by mobilizing the real, the virtual and the designable. In relation to the real, we can see that farmers report on events they have experienced events that are conditioned by determinants that impact their work situations, and which they must take into account when projecting themselves into future work situations. In relation to the virtual, farmers project themselves into the future, either by making goals explicit, or by showing their ideals, for a future they describe as unattainable. Finally, when it comes to the designable, farmers project themselves into the future by exploring possibilities, listing situations that would be risky, establishing what is necessary to realize certain possibilities and making decisions for the future. Farmers even anticipate the realization of certain possibilities, in the sense of planning them. If these two methodological proposals ultimately enable farmers to progress in their agroecological transition by developing a reflexive approach to their past work

68

S. Bourgeois-Bougrine et al.

situations, in relation to their current concerns and always with an eye on the future, they also present interesting differences in the construction of the future and the conditional future. One major difference lies in the place given to the future, in the construction of the future. More specifically, the Chronicle of Change favors making explicit the work situations experienced during the transition in order to think about the future. It’s based on tracing back in time from the past to the future, to enable farmers to develop their future work situations. In contrast, the Dis-jumble method is based on tracing a future, projected timeframe, and it is in response to this trace that farmers explore their past work situations. What’s more, the Dis-jumble method is not primarily aimed at designing future work situations, but rather at devising a tool that would enable them to do so, and to do so alone, without a facilitator. Indeed, during the Dis-jumble design workshops, farmers constantly refer to elements relating to their work, in all three moments of time: past, present and future. For example, farmers emphasize the centrality of the issue of anticipation in the farming environment, particularly in agroecological transition, their preoccupations, work peaks, the objectives they are pursuing, or even their constraints (e.g. financial, deadlines), hazards (e.g. weather, missed deadlines), and their desires (e.g. to take a vacation). In other words, the design of the tool is inexorably based on the data they need to think about their work, their new situations, other ways of doing things, and this on different time scales (short, medium and long term). These two complementary methodological proposals are conducive to exploring the future, whether through the virtual or the designable. They are a way of stimulating reflection on farmers’ knowledge and experience, in a space where they can give free rein to their creativity. In this way, they constitute a space favorable to the implementation of a creative activity by farmers, based on both reflexive and projective activity.

 he Use of Emergent Technology to Promote Creative T Future-Oriented Thinking The co-creativity of future scenarios can suffer from what has been called group productivity loss (Diehl & Stroebe, 1987) due to factors such as production blocking, evaluation apprehension, fixation, social loafing, and groupthink. These difficulties are caused by the ‘classic’ modalities of generating solutions in a real physical environment, that is, the oral mode of generating ideas, the lack of anonymity, the visibility of the response, etc. These biases tend to reinforce the mental models of the participants leading to a lack of originality of the produced ideas and scenarios. In the context of prospective ergonomics and the psychology of creativity, recent research has shown that conducting creativity sessions in virtual environments can be an alternative solution to overcome the difficulties mentioned above and optimize participants’ creativity.

5  Future-Oriented Thinking: The Creativity Connection

69

Virtual reality (VR) refers to the virtual reconstruction of a three-dimensional environment. VR can also mobilize other types of sensory simulations: sound, simulation of movement, touch, smell. It allows the participants to be represented by avatars that make them anonymous (or confidential). The outcomes of our recent research indicate that co-creativity is (1) favored in a virtual environment compared to a real environment and (2) that an “inventor” type avatar influences the production of innovative ideas compared to a “neutral” avatar (Bourgeois-Bougrine et al., 2022; Buisine et al., 2016; Guegan et al., 2016; Thornhill-Miller & Dupont, 2016). In VR, individuals can dare to take risks and propose original solutions that they would not have been able to express if they had been personally identifiable. It has been suggested that benign, safe, and comfortable environments lead to global processing because, in this type of atmosphere, individuals are more inclined to take risks (Friedman & Förster, 2010). A risky exploratory processing style promotes creativity (Steidle & Werth, 2013). Moreover, Avatars’ appearance can influence the behaviors, attitudes and creativity of users who interact in a virtual environment (Buisine et al., 2016; Guegan et al., 2016). This effect is known as the ‘Proteus effect’ after the Greek mythological god who possessed the power of metamorphosis. It could be explained by two theories: self-perception (participants would be particularly sensitive to the social cues associated with their new identity that they infer from their avatar) and priming (the avatar is likely to activate concepts in the memory that are associated with its appearance). The other advantage of embodying a character via an avatar lies in the fact that it’s not just a question of thinking about the character but rather of playing the role (role play) in simulation. In an ongoing  study (APERO  project  IdEx Université Paris Cité, ANR-18-­ IDEX-0001), we successfully tested the feasibility of future-oriented workshops on Zoom and Glue, a collaborative virtual reality (VR) platform. The rationale was that a VR foresight workshop will have both fundamental and practical benefits. It will promote the commitment of the participants, provide the possibility to automatically record the exchanges, including the resulting ideas and scenarios, but most importantly allow participants to escape from their “regular” world in the somewhat game-like virtual universe. As avatars, they will also benefit from some degree of anonymity, and feel relatively free to express ideas they may normally censure due to the social setting. The preliminary results show that (1) both VR and zoom platforms promoted the emergence of original prospective scenarios and (2) the VR platform was particularly powerful in stimulating the participants’ creativity and uplifting their mood. Participants in the VR condition, compared to the zoom condition (considered as a baseline control condition for collaborative work at distance).

70

S. Bourgeois-Bougrine et al.

Discussion and Conclusion Future-oriented thinking has been presented as an essentially creative act. The creativity connection is related to the original meaning of “Creation” that is “the action of causing to exist” or “a coming into being” (Gare, The Palgrave Encyclopedia of the Possible, Palgrave, 2022). It involves envisioning what “could be”, which means inventing possibilities, examining them and building an action plan to pursue one or more of these possibilities. The connection to creativity, and transformational creativity, is ultimately two fold. First, the domain of future studies, focusing on the generation of alternative possible future scenarios to help structure projects is a powerful tool that, by essence, involves creativity. This chapter offered the opportunity to see how envisioning the future often involves creative thinking and relies on specific creativity techniques. Such future-oriented thinking is illustrated in examples from the agricultural domain. However, it is generally applicable to all types of problems or topics. The advent of virtual reality offers a new opportunity to enhance creative thinking in future-oriented design workshops. Ultimately, the future studies field, enhanced through advanced creativity methods, can offer support for transformational creative thinking because future-oriented thinking and its associated specific techniques or methods support societal change. The second connection between future-oriented thinking and creativity concerns the outcome or result of change. Transformational creativity is defined as “creativity that is deployed to make a positive, meaningful and potentially enduring difference to the world” (Sternberg, 2021, p. 75). Transformational creativity serves the common good, with integrity and leads the world to be a better place (Sternberg & Karami, this volume; Sternberg, 2023a, 2023b). It contrasts with dark creativity, inventive ideas that serve negative or evil purposes. Transformational creativity is also distinguished from transactional creativity, in which original work is produced to serve personal or contractual goals as in creative jobs (e.g. writers, artists, designers) (Sternberg, 2023a). Future-oriented thinking opens the space of the possible. It helps break from the confines of current reality, which may seem static, and may be based on a biased, restricted or even fake image of the world (see Sternberg, 2023b, concerning “reality capture”). Thus, future-oriented thinking can include an ethical component, a positive societal vision that guides idea generation. It is therefore a path to transformational creativity. One notable point about future-oriented thinking is the prospective, projected long-term consequences of each action envisioned, as a 20 to 50 year time horizon is often adopted. Future-oriented thinking invites practitioners to envision the long-term positive and negative externalities of each possible choice. This approach aligns well with the notion of seeking the “common good” in the long-­ term, as the potential impact of an idea is often neglected (see Corazza, 2016). Finally, a last connection between future-oriented thinking and transformational creativity can be highlighted. The term “transformational” suggests proposals that go beyond incremental change. Getting more impactful, transformational ideas may be favored by seeking a wide range of possibilities, with a long-term horizon, which is central to a future-oriented, prospective approach.

5  Future-Oriented Thinking: The Creativity Connection

71

References Abraham, A. (2018). The neuroscience of creativity. Cambridge University Press. Agnoli, S., Zanon, M., Mastria, S., Avenanti, A., & Corazza, G. E. (2020). Predicting response originality through brain activity: An analysis of changes in EEG alpha power during the generation of alternative ideas. NeuroImage, 207, 116385. Beaty, R.  E., Christensen, A.  P., Benedek, M., Silvia, P.  J., & Schacter, D.  L. (2017). Creative constraints: Brain activity and network dynamics underlying semantic interference during idea production. NeuroImage, 148, 189–196. Béguin, P. (2010). Conduite de projet et fabrication collective du travail: Une approche développementale. Habilitation à diriger des recherches, Université Victor Segalen Bordeaux 2. Béguin, P., & Bergamini, J. F. (1996). Organiser la conception pour le chantier. Dans R. Patesson (Ed.), Intervenir par l’ergonomie, Actes du XXXIème Congrès de la SELF. Bruxelles, vol. 1, 219–223. Bendetowicz, D., Urbanski, M., Garcin, B., Foulon, C., Levy, R., Bréchemier, M. L., Rosso, C., Thiebaut de Schotten, M., & Volle, E. (2018). Two critical brain networks for generation and combination of remote associations. Brain, 141(1), 217–233. Bergamini, J.  F. (1995). Du virtuel au réel. Quelques aspects de l’activité du chef de chantier. Unpublished Mémoire de DEA d’Ergonomie. Paris, CNAM–EPHE. Bourgeois-Bougrine, S. (2020). What does creativity mean in safety-critical environments? Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 2518. Bourgeois-Bougrine, S., Bonnardel, N., Jean-Marie Burkhardt, J. M., Thornhill-Miller, B., Pahlavan, F., Buisine, S., Guegan, J., Pichot, N., & Lubart, T. (2022). Creativity in Multi-­ Users Virtual Environments: A Review. European Psychologist, 27(3), 237–253, https://doi. org/10.1027/1016-­9040/a000481 Bubić, A., & Abraham, A. (2014). Neurocognitive bases of future oriented cognition. Review of Psychology, 21(1), 3–15. Buisine, S., Guegan, J., Barré, J., Segonds, F., & Aoussat, A. (2016). Using avatars to tailor ideation process to innovation strategy. Cognition, Technology & Work, 18(3), 583–594. Chantre, E., & Cardona, A. (2014). Trajectories of French field crop farmers moving toward sustainable farming practices: Change, learning, and links with the advisory services. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, 38(5), 573–602. Chizallet, Barcellini, & Prost. (2023). Sustainable system of systems at work: Unraveling (some of) the complexity of farmers’ transition to sustainability. Ergonomics. https://doi.org/10.108 0/00140139.2022.2163687 Chizallet, M. (2019). Comprendre le processus de conception d’un système de travail dans l’indivisibilité du temps. Le cas d’agriculteurs en transition agroécologique. Thèse, Conservatoire National des Arts et Métiers. Chizallet, M., Prost, L., & Barcellini, F. (2020). Supporting the design activity of farmers in transition to agroecology: Towards an understanding. Le Travail Humain, 83(1), 33–59. Chizallet, M., Prost, L., & Barcellini, F. (2021). The work system: A scale to capture the systemic design activity of farmers in agroecological transition. In N.  L. Black, W.  P. Neumann, & I. Noy (Eds.), Proceedings of the 21st congress of the international ergonomics association (IEA 2021). IEA 2021. Lecture notes in networks and systems (Vol. 219). Springer. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-­3-­030-­74602-­5_14 Corazza, G. E. (2016). Potential originality and effectiveness: The dynamic definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 28(3), 258–267. Diehl, M., & Stroebe, W. (1987). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Toward the solution of a riddle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(3), 497. Elkington, J. (1998). Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st century business. Capstone. Friedman, R. S., & Förster, J. (2010). Implicit affective cues and attentional tuning: An integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 136(5), 875.

72

S. Bourgeois-Bougrine et al.

Gare, A. (2022). Creating the future. The Palgrave Encyclopedia of the possible. Palgrave. Guegan, J., Buisine, S., Mantelet, F., Maranzana, N., & Segonds, F. (2016). Avatar-mediated creativity: When embodying inventors makes engineers more creative. Computers in Human Behavior, 61, 165–175. Jones, C. B. (2023). Creativity: The flawed forge of tomorrows. Futures, 103159. Jouve, P. (2010). Practices and strategies for adapting farmers to climatic hazards in sub-Saharan Africa. Grain de sel, 49, 15–16. Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Beyond big and little: The four-c model of creativity. Review of General Psychology, 13, 1–13. Krznaric, R. (2020). The good ancestor: How to think long term in a short-term world. Random House. Lemery, B., Ingrand, S., Dedieu, B., & Dégrange, B. (2005). Agir en situation d’incertitude : Le cas des éleveurs de bovins allaitants. Économie rurale. Agricultures, alimentations, territoires, 288, 57–69. Madore, K. P., Jing, H. G., & Schacter, D. L. (2016). Divergent creative thinking in young and older adults: Extending the effects of an episodic specificity induction. Memory & Cognition, 44, 974–988. Martin, C. (2000). Maîtrise d’ouvrage, maîtrise d’oeuvre, construire un vrai dialogue: la contribution de l’Ergonomie à la conduite de projet architectural. Toulouse: Octarès. Nicourt, C., & Souron, O. (1989). Incidences de quelques innovations sur les conditions de travail des agriculteurs. Économie rurale, 192(1), 110–114. Poli, R. (2022). Foresight. The Palgrave Encyclopedia of the possible. Palgrave. Popper, R. (2008). How are foresight methods selected? Foresight, 10(6), 62–89. Rayner, G., Antoniou, M., Jackson, G., & Tailby, C. (2022). Compromised future thinking: Another cognitive cost of temporal lobe epilepsy. Brain Communications, 4(2), fcac062. Richou, S. (2017). Coopétition en action, 10 leviers pour élaborer et déployer votre stratégie. Editions Dunod. Steidle, A., & Werth, L. (2013). Freedom from constraints: Darkness and dim illumination promote creativity. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 35, 67–80. Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Successful intelligence: How practical and creative intelligence determine success in life. PlumeBooks. Sternberg, R. J. (2021). Transformational creativity: The link between creativity, wisdom, and the solution of global problems. Philosophies, 6, 75. Sternberg, R. J. (2023a). Varieties of transformational and transactional creativity. Man. Sternberg, R. J. (2023b). Reality capture: Why we need transformational creativity more than ever before. Manuscript. Sternberg, R. J., & Karami, S. (this volume). Why transformational creativity? In R. J. Sternberg & S. Karemi (Eds.), Transformational creativity. Palgrave. Szpunar, K. K., Spreng, R. N., & Schacter, D. L. (2014). A taxonomy of prospection: Introducing an organizational framework for future-oriented cognition. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(52), 18414–18421. Thornhill-Miller, B., & Dupont, J. M. (2016). Virtual reality and the enhancement of creativity and innovation: Under recognized potential among converging technologies? Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 15(1), 102–121. Voros, J. (2017). Big history and anticipation: Using big history as a framework for global foresight. In R. Poli (Ed.), Handbook of anticipation: Theoretical and applied aspects of the use of future in decision making. Springer International. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­3-­319-­31737-­3_95-­1 WCED. (1987). Our common future. Brundtland Report. https://doi.org/10.1002/jid.3380010208. Wezel, A., Bellon, S., Doré, T., Francis, C., Vallod, D., & David, C. (2009). Agroecology as a science, a movement and a practice. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 29(4), 503–515. https://doi.org/10.1051/agro/2009004

Chapter 6

Concerned Creativity to Counteract Concerning Creativity Aakash A. Chowkase, Kshama R. Datar, and Abhishek M. Dedhe

Concerned Creativity to Counteract Concerning Creativity “The larger the number for whom I worked, the more positively effective I became. Thus, it is obvious that if I worked always … for all humanity, I would be optimally effective” ~ R. Buckminster Fuller, the highly creative inventor and architect, also known as the da Vinci of the twentieth century (Fuller & Kuromiya, 1981, p. 125). Humans are a uniquely creative species. We are constantly producing novel ideas and products that add value to and transform our societies (Runco & Jaeger, 2012). This powerful creative streak has shaped the course of human cultural evolution. For example, human language vastly transcends the expressive power of animal and other non-human communication. This expressive power stems from the highly flexible and unboundedly creative nature of human language that “makes infinite use of finite means” (Humboldt, 1836, as cited in Chomsky, 1965) to communicate a wide variety of both concrete and abstract ideas such as “justice,” “number,” “money,” and indeed “creativity” that have shaped human civilization. In addition to We have no known conflict of interest to disclose. A. A. Chowkase (*) Department of Psychology, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA e-mail: [email protected] K. R. Datar Jnana Prabodhini’s Institute of Psychology, Pune, India e-mail: [email protected] A. M. Dedhe Department of Psychology, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA Center for the Neural Basis of Cognition, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2024 R. J. Sternberg, S. Karami (eds.), Transformational Creativity, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-51590-3_6

73

74

A. A. Chowkase et al.

language, the potentially infinite nature of human creativity shines through in object manipulation and tool use. Equipped with our opposable thumbs, we continuously innovate to create new machines and technologies in a rapidly changing world. We are constantly communicating impactful ideas to build ever-more complex material technologies such as vaccines, spaceships, and artificial intelligence, while simultaneously developing ideas, such as in religion, philosophy, and spirituality, to solve our species’ deepest existential questions. Thus, our unbounded human creativity has affected and continues to affect our species, often in positive, prosocial, and transformational ways (Kaufman & Glăveanu, 2023; Sternberg, 2021a, 2021b; Sternberg & Chowkase, 2021). Yet creativity can too often function as a double-edged sword, leading to negative, antisocial, and harmful consequences for our society, also known as dark or malevolent creativity (Cropley et al., 2010; James et al., 1999; Kapoor & Kaufman, 2022). Humans can create both calculus and concentration camps. Indeed, many of the intractable, complex, and “wicked” policy challenges, such as climate change, global poverty, malnutrition, and armed conflicts, arise from the applications and misapplications of creativity (Churchman, 1967). Such cases of concerning creativity warrant special attention, due to their widespread impact on our world. Furthermore, the creation of groundbreaking technologies including nuclear bombs, biological weapons, and artificial intelligence paints a stark picture: for the first time in human history, have humans created the ability to utterly destroy their own species? Thus, the dangers of unchanneled and unchallenged creativity cannot be overstated. Neither can they merely be observed passively. Instead, such concerning creativity ought to be actively countered by developing concerned creativity—creativity that not only fulfills self-serving purposes but also takes into account the welfare of others beyond the immediate social circle of the creative actor including other people, society, and the planet. For creative ideas to yield constructive outcomes, they must be aligned with a socially positive system of values, morals, and ethics (Amabile & Pratt, 2016). For example, the energy industry is currently witnessing an urgent need for creative solutions in the face of climate change and economic challenges. Energy generation has become an increasingly complex, messy, and wicked problem, as it requires creative solutions that address interconnected and often diverging social, environmental, and financial concerns (Adkin, 2019; Mitchell & Walinga, 2017). What the energy sector needs today are solutions that are not only novel and useful but also positive, prosocial, and transformational (Sternberg, 2021a, 2021b; Sternberg & Chowkase, 2021). By embracing concerned creativity and aligning their creative endeavors with socially positive values, the energy industry can address the pressing challenges of climate change and create a more sustainable future (Broadstock et al., 2020).

6  Concerned Creativity to Counteract Concerning Creativity

75

Purpose Creativity is the ability to produce novel and valuable or useful ideas (Runco & Jaeger, 2012). However, what is useful and creates value for one set of people can cause harm to other groups (George, 2007). As such, the widespread misuse of creativity has drawn the attention of many creativity researchers who believe that benevolent purpose should be equally central to creativity as novelty and value (Amabile & Pratt, 2016; Clark & James, 1999; Kaufman & Glăveanu, 2023; Plucker et al., 2004; Sternberg, 2021a, 2021b; Sternberg & Chowkase, 2021; Sternberg & Karami, 2021). A similar argument has been made by several scholars in the field of giftedness and talent development studies, a field that is closely related to the field of creativity studies. Several giftedness scholars highlight the need for the deployment of gifts and talents toward positive, prosocial, and transformational purposes as a key tenet of their conception of giftedness (Sternberg et al., 2021; see, Sternberg et al., 2022, for a review). One such conception is the three Cs conception of giftedness (Chowkase, 2022a, 2022b; Chowkase & Watve, 2022), in which gifted behaviors are construed as an interplay of competence in action, commitment to the task, and concern for others (Renzulli, 2016). The focus on concern for others is a novel feature of the three Cs model, which is relevant to the topic of transformational creativity. Many scholars consider creativity as a sub-domain of giftedness (e.g., Marland, 1971). Therefore, the purpose of this chapter is to extend the three Cs conception of giftedness to the study of creativity. Our conception of creativity goes beyond the traditional definition of producing novel and valuable or useful ideas. Similar to Sternberg and Karami (2021), we argue that purpose should also be included in the conception of creativity. Therefore, the focus of this conception is on the centrality of the transformational purpose of creativity that can help make positive, meaningful, and potentially enduring contributions to both self and others (Sternberg, 2021a, 2021b). Our vision of creativity development focuses not only on fostering the creative competence and commitment needed to achieve excellence in one’s creation but also on expanding one’s circle of concern for others. In this chapter, we explain the rationale and three focal constructs of our model. We conclude the chapter by describing our pilot educational program for teaching concerned or transformational creativity.

Going Beyond the Individual in Creativity Traditional conceptions of creativity have typically focused on the individual (Simonton, 2008). Across many educational systems, creative endeavors are often thought to be accessible only to the exceptional and the gifted. However, researchers in recent times have highlighted how creativity is not the sole achievement of a

76

A. A. Chowkase et al.

solitary individual but rather based on the interaction of three autonomous elements: the individual, cultural domain, and social field (Csikszentmihalyi, 2014). A growing body of research points to the importance of factors beyond the individual in driving the origins of creativity (Glăveanu et al., 2020; Tromp & Sternberg, 2022). Not only does creativity find its origins beyond the individual, but so do its consequences. Whereas traditional approaches to creative individuals have conceptualized creativity as a “gift” to be exploited, such views can eventually lead to selfish and harmful applications of creativity (Cropley et  al., 2010; James et  al., 1999; Kapoor & Kaufman, 2022). However, more recent approaches (e.g., Chowkase & Watve, 2022) to various intellectual gifts such as creativity have stressed “trusteeship of gifts” over an individual’s “ownership of gifts;” as such, the individual is entrusted to use their creativity for the benefit of all (Sternberg, 2022), thus emphasizing the social impact of creativity. In today’s hyper-connected world, one’s actions can have an astronomical impact on others, as evidenced by the recent COVID-19 pandemic. Developing concern for others, therefore, becomes an existential necessity (Chowkase & Watve, 2022).

The Three Cs Conception of Creativity Drawing on the insight that creativity, in both its origins and its impacts, is situated beyond the individual, we conceptualize creativity, especially positive or transformational creativity, as the interaction of creative competence, commitment to the creative task, and concern for others in the creative process and product (see Fig. 6.1). Each of these constructs can be seen as a group of abilities, skills, attitudes, and behaviors. Creative competence refers to the abilities and skills required Fig. 6.1  The three Cs conception of creativity

Creative Competence

Commitment to the creative task

Concern for others

6  Concerned Creativity to Counteract Concerning Creativity

77

to effectively complete a creative task. Task commitment pertains to an individual’s motivation to continue and complete a creative task. Concern for others involves having the ability, sensitivity, and attitude to comprehend the needs and difficulties of others, establish a relationship with them, and be willing to take action. All three constructs are essential for positive or transformational creativity in this conception. Concerning or dark creativity can then be viewed as an interaction among creative competence, task commitment, and lack of concern for others.

C1: Creative Competence Creative competence refers to the abilities and skills required to effectively complete a creative task. Divergent thinking, and especially originality and flexibility, is a central indicator of potential for creative thinking and is objectively measured in most studies of creativity (Runco & Acar, 2019). Besides divergent thinking, creative thinking also involves problem finding and evaluative thinking (Abdulla Alabbasi et al., 2020, 2021; Runco & Chand, 1995). Finding the right problem to solve is a critical aspect of transformational creativity (Sternberg, 2021b). Some consensus exists that creativity also requires domain-specific knowledge and expertise (Amabile, 1996; Mumford et  al., 2013; Subotnik et  al., 2019). Knowledge, both declarative (factual information) and procedural (know-how), can influence creative thinking in facilitative and inhibiting ways (Kozbelt & Kantrowitz, 2019; Runco & Chand, 1995). Amabile (1996; Amabile & Pratt, 2016) described several other creativity-relevant processes and skills in her componential model of creativity. These include cognitive styles, perceptual styles, and thinking skills that are conducive to taking new perspectives on problems, pivoting among different ideas, thinking broadly, and making unusual associations; personality processes, traits, and characteristics that lead the individual to take risks and eschew conformity; and persistent, energetic work styles. Developing creative competence entails mastering the aforementioned processes and skills. Creative competence forms the core of creativity. No transformation is possible without developing creative competence; however, competence is by itself not sufficient for the understanding of creativity. The second important aspect of creativity in our view is the commitment to the creative task, without which one may never produce any high-quality creative idea or product at any level. As such, creative competence predicts what an individual can do, whereas commitment to the creative task predicts what they will actually do.

78

A. A. Chowkase et al.

C2: Commitment to the Creative Task Task commitment pertains to an individual’s motivation to continue and complete a creative task. Task motivation is one of the key components of creativity (Amabile, 1996; Hennessey, 2019; Runco & Chand, 1995). Motivation can be task-specific and time-varying (Amabile, 1996; Hennessey, 2019). Amabile (1983) suggested two key elements of task motivation: attitudes toward the task and perceptions of own motivation for undertaking the task. Similarly, Kaufman and Glăveanu (2023) proposed passion and inspiration as the two most representative motivational constructs of creative ethos. Additionally, a body of research demonstrates how motivation, intrinsic, extrinsic, and prosocial, may be a driver of the creative process (Amabile, 1996; George, 2007; Hennessey, 2019). Interestingly, prosocial motivation and perspective-taking have been found to strengthen the relationship between intrinsic motivation and creativity (Forgeard, 2022; Grant & Berry, 2011), thereby highlighting the importance of focusing on others in the creative process. Several other factors can influence task motivation. Perceived progress in the creative task and perceived meaningfulness of the task can influence creativity via their effect on motivation (Amabile & Pratt, 2016; Grant & Berry, 2011). Additionally, research indicates that increases in creative self-efficacy are associated with increases in creative performance (Richter et al., 2012; Tierney & Farmer, 2011). Similarly, prior research hints that the creative-growth mindset and creative-­ fixed mindset are substantially related to creative performance (Karwowski, 2014; O’Connor et al., 2013). We hold that creative ideas or products are an outcome of creative competence and task commitment. The greater the product of these two constructs, the better the quality of the creative idea or product. However, such a value-free notion of creativity without an emphasis on concern for others can have negative, harmful, and even malevolent consequences for others (Cropley et  al., 2010; James et al., 1999; Kapoor & Kaufman, 2022). Thus, we add concern for others to our conception of creativity along with competence and task commitment. It seems somewhat impossible to counteract concerning creativity without having a genuine concern for others.

C3: Concern for Others We posit that achieving any transformational impact on the world requires cultivating concern for others. Being concerned for others means perceiving their needs and challenges, forming a sense of belonging with them, experiencing the emotional urge to help, and being motivated to take action (Chowkase & Watve, 2022). As humans, we are born with the ability to feel the suffering of others and be motivated to alleviate it (Keltner, 2009; Keltner et al., 2010). However, simply having concern for others without taking action is inadequate for making any

6  Concerned Creativity to Counteract Concerning Creativity

79

transformational change in the world. True concern should lead to meaningful prosocial acts in the creative process. Inculcating and expressing concern for others in the creative process requires practicing empathy, compassion, and prosocial behavior, which jointly enable individuals to understand the realities of others and to work toward their betterment through the creative endeavor (Chowkase & Watve, 2022). Kaufman and Glăveanu (2023) have recently proposed similar constructs in their theory of creative ethos, two of which are perspective-taking (empathy) and compassion. Empathy Empathy is thinking and feeling with another person. It involves perspective-taking or cognitive empathy and empathic concern or affective empathy (Davis, 1983). Perspective-taking is the ability to mentalize or imagine things from another person’s perspective, whereas empathic concern involves experience sharing or mirroring the emotions of others (Davis, 1983). Creativity requires the ability to perceive the needs, thoughts, and feelings of one’s audience (Glăveanu, 2015). Both perspective-­taking and empathic concern influence prosocial behavior (Batson, 2011; Chowkase, 2022a), which in turn strengthens the relationship between intrinsic motivation and creativity (Forgeard, 2022; Grant & Berry, 2011). Evidence from neuroscience also suggests that empathizing and creativity may have overlapping neural bases (Takeuchi et  al., 2014). To that extent, some evidence points to the effectiveness of empathy-based psychoeducational interventions in improving creative thinking (Doron, 2017). Compassion Compassion is the capacity to perceive and desire to alleviate another’s suffering (Goetz et  al., 2010). It involves mindfully engaging with the suffering of others, acknowledging common humanity, and responding with kindness (Jinpa, 2015). Although compassion seems to share some commonalities with empathy, both conceptual and evolutionary, they are two distinctly separable constructs (Zaki, 2014). Whereas empathy requires mentalizing and mirroring the emotional and cognitive states of others, compassion helps connect with another’s suffering without necessarily engaging in mentalizing and mirroring their states (Chowkase & Watve, 2022). This distinction is particularly useful in transformationally creative endeavors as one individual or a team of creators can never fully empathize with all those they may influence with their creation. Creative actors can, however, use their compassion to connect with people who are different from them. Similar to empathy, compassion is a strong motivator of prosocial behavior (Batson, 2011; Chowkase, 2022a), and even short-term compassion training can lead to a positive change in prosocial behavior toward strangers (Leiberg et  al., 2011). Moreover, compassion may also drive moral judgments and harm-reducing

80

A. A. Chowkase et al.

actions (Haidt, 2003), which is particularly important for transformational creativity. However, limited research exists linking compassion and creativity (Kaufman & Glăveanu, 2023), especially transformational creativity, which calls for more research in this area. Prosocial Behavior As stated earlier, we posit that true concern should translate into meaningful prosocial behavior in the creative process. Prosocial behavior is a range of actions intended to benefit people other than oneself, such as helping, comforting, cooperating, and sharing (Batson, 2011; Caprara et al., 2005). Prosocial behavior is rooted in values that concern the well-being of others. These values include self-­ transcendence and communal orientation, which emphasize interdependence, personal responsibility, and closeness with others (Clark & Mills, 1994; Schwartz, 2007). Self-transcendence values are further divided into two categories: universalism, which involves understanding and protecting the welfare of all people, and benevolence, which focuses on preserving and improving the welfare of those who are close to us (Schwartz, 2007). We hold that promoting the values of universalism, benevolence, and self-transcendence is essential to achieving the goals of transformational creativity. People who have a strong desire to help others often go above and beyond what is expected of them to make a positive impact on the lives of those around them (Grant, 2007, 2008), which makes prosociality a critical component of transformational creativity.

Teaching for Transformational Creativity Creativity is malleable and teachable, and so is transformational creativity (Sternberg & Chowkase, 2021). A vast body of literature points to teachable components of creativity as well as processes by which creativity can be developed through education. However, transformational creativity is a relatively new concept and has not, at least yet, been widely adopted in educational settings. Looking at a similar idea can help generate ideas for translating the concept into teaching programs. One such effort can be found in the literature on wise and humanizing creativity, an idea that is similar to transformational creativity (Sternberg & Chowkase, 2021). Wise creativity involves deploying creative ideas toward the collective good (Craft, 2008). This idea has been implemented into an educational program using a gameful learning design with a focus on attending to ethics and the impact of ideas, engaging in dialogue, being in control, and engaging in action (Walsh et  al., 2017). Similar experiments are needed with the idea of transformational creativity. With this in mind, we recently (Summer 2023) organized a four-day residential summer camp with 5th and 6th grade Indian students on the theme of transformational creativity. We used the three Cs framework described above in our program

6  Concerned Creativity to Counteract Concerning Creativity

81

planning. Although the effectiveness of the program is currently being assessed and remains unknown at this time, we present the outline of the program here to help the reader visualize the program. Our only hope in doing so is to pave the way for future experiments in program development around this theme and program evaluation research that may follow. Our presentation below is not prescriptive. Rather, we provide program details only as a description and trigger for future program design in this area.

Session 1: Exploring Creativity During the Exploring Creativity session, students discussed how creativity can make a positive impact on society. Additionally, they brainstormed ideas for using creativity for noble purposes.

Session 2: Creative Mindsets In the session on Creative Mindsets, students engaged with the concept of fixed and growth mindsets (Karwowski, 2014), exploring how an individual’s beliefs can influence their creativity. Through examples, teachers emphasized that creativity can grow and develop with effort and deliberate practice.

Session 3: Artistic Creativity During the Artistic Creativity session, students explored different ways of repurposing trash materials such as newspapers to create artistic items. The session aimed to inspire students to see that even discarded items can be transformed into novel and useful creations.

Session 4: Creative Problem Solving (Part 1) In the Creative Problem Solving session, students watched the Marathi movie Elizabeth Ekadashi and discussed the characters’ use of imagination, practical thinking, and wisdom to overcome challenges. They also discussed social issues such as discrimination and superstitions portrayed in the film.

82

A. A. Chowkase et al.

Session 5: Creative Problem Solving (Part 2) In the second session on Creative Problem Solving, students learned about and applied the five steps of problem solving: preparation, incubation, illumination, evaluation, and verification (Amabile & Pratt, 2016; Wallas, 1926). In small groups, students were challenged to make snacks for everyone on the team with a meager budget of INR 25 (30 cents).

Session 6: Designing The Designing session taught students the fundamentals of design, with a task to create a logo and motto for their educational program. Teachers covered topics such as conveying ideas through visual and verbal expressions. Students collaborated in small groups, applying the creative thinking process (Amabile & Pratt, 2016; Wallas, 1926) to complete their tasks.

 essions 7–9: Creative Expression: Musical, Kinesthetic, S and Synchronization In a series of Creative Expression sessions, students explored different forms of creative expression. In the Musical session, they composed songs and developed dance steps based on gibberish lyrics, blending them with the melodies of their favorite songs. The Kinesthetic session focused on physical movement as a means of creative expression, with students using various body movements to convey ideas and emotions. They even formed human pyramids while dancing energetically. Lastly, the Creative Synchronization session involved watching a synchronized walking video and then working in groups to create their two-minute synchronized walks. Precision, creativity, teamwork, and attention to detail were emphasized as students showcased their synchronized walks.

Session 10: Mathematical Creativity In the Mathematical Creativity session, students were given math problems and were encouraged to think creatively to find multiple ways to solve each problem. The session aimed to show the connection between creativity and math, and to improve students’ problem-solving skills.

6  Concerned Creativity to Counteract Concerning Creativity

83

Session 11: Concerned Creativity The objective of the concluding session of the program was to orient students’ attention to the aspects of purpose and impact of creativity. Through examples from arts (portraits), children’s literature, and technology (Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence), three guest speakers demonstrated examples of the positive, prosocial, and transformational deployment of creativity in their domains of expertise. For example, a Machine Learning expert demonstrated the use of lateral thinking to address the burning issue of misinformation. An artist displayed her portraits of Indigenous women and described how she used her art to promote cultural diversity. Throughout the session, students reflected on the impact of an individual’s creative ideas and products on others, especially on marginalized communities. Drawing inspiration from creative leaders such as Mahatma Gandhi, teachers described the transformative potential of creativity and its role in fostering a more inclusive, ethical, and compassionate society. Overall, this session underscored creativity’s potential to shape a better world.

Teaching Approach The creativity program incorporated the three Cs, competence, commitment, and concern for others, by designing sessions that address these aspects in a holistic and integrated manner. The sessions on designing, artistic and mathematical creativity, and musical and kinesthetic creative expression directly targeted the development of creative competence. Students were engaged in activities requiring several creativity-­relevant skills, such as divergent thinking, evaluative thinking, critical thinking, and problem-solving skills, as well as domain-specific knowledge, and memory. The sessions on creative mindsets and creative synchronization focused on task commitment. These sessions aimed to develop motivation-related skills such as attitudes toward the task, dedication, focus, and perseverance, in their creative endeavors. In six of the eleven sessions, students were put into groups, thereby requiring them to work on their group skills such as collaboration, interpersonal communication, and openness toward others. The two sessions on creative problem solving combined aspects of creative competence and task commitment and provided opportunities to practice problem-solving skills in real-life contexts. The sessions on exploring creativity and concerned creativity drew students’ attention to the purpose and impact of their creative ideas. The objective was to expand their circle of concern beyond their immediate relatives and friends. Through discussions, multimedia, and guest speakers, students were nudged to practice empathy, compassion, and prosocial behavior and inculcate a sense of responsibility and social awareness in their creative problem solving. This thrust on concern for others also appeared in other sessions, such as the movie discussion.

84

A. A. Chowkase et al.

The creative thinking process was emphasized across the sessions, repeatedly inviting students to think about the steps involved in the creative process. Overall, the program provided a comprehensive and integrated creative experience for students by combining competence, commitment, and concern for others across several domains of creativity. Data were collected before and after the program on four variables about task commitment: fixed-creative mindset, growth-creative mindset, creative self-efficacy, and creative personal identity. The preliminary results revealed a statistically significant change over time in participants’ creative self-efficacy and creative personal identity. Final results are being developed at the time of writing this chapter. Future research on program effectiveness should include several other constructs enlisted in the proposed model.

Conclusion Value-free notions of creativity have dominated the study of creativity (e.g., Runco & Jaeger, 2012). However, the past and present days of human civilization point to innumerable examples of concerning creativity, from eugenics to atom bombs to deepfake videos. Today, we humans are standing at the turn of an Artificial Intelligence revolution. At the same time, polarization and violence are on the rise globally. Every day, we are uncovering the enormous creative potential of our species as we look to coexist peacefully with other humans, the planet, and the new advents in technology. In these defining times, we need creativity that serves positive, prosocial, and transformational purposes. In this chapter, we extended the three Cs conception of giftedness (Chowkase & Watve, 2022) to the study of creativity. We presented the three components of our model as they relate to creativity, viz., competence, commitment, and concern for others, with a focus on concerned or transformational creativity. By proposing the 3Cs model of creativity and our pilot educational program, we hope to continue and extend the scholarship on the timely theory of transformational creativity. With concerned creativity, we might have a chance to counteract concerning creativity. The time for creativity that cares is now.

References Abdulla Alabbasi, A. M., Hafsyan, A. S. M., Runco, M. A., & AlSaleh, A. (2021). Problem finding, divergent thinking, and evaluative thinking among gifted and nongifted students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 44(4), 398–413. https://doi.org/10.1177/01623532211044539 Abdulla Alabbasi, A. M., Paek, S., Cramond, B., & Runco, M. A. (2020). Problem finding and creativity: A meta-analytic review. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 14(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000194 Adkin, L. E. (2019). Technology innovation as a response to climate change: The case of the climate change emissions management corporation of Alberta. Review of Policy Research, 36(5), 603–634. https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12357

6  Concerned Creativity to Counteract Concerning Creativity

85

Amabile, T.  M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(2), 357. https://doi. org/10.1037/0022-­3514.45.2.357 Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context. Westview Press. Amabile, T. M., & Pratt, M. G. (2016). The dynamic componential model of creativity and innovation in organizations: Making progress, making meaning. Research in Organizational Behavior, 36, 157–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2016.10.001 Batson, C. D. (2011). Altruism in humans. Oxford University Press. Broadstock, D. C., Matousek, R., Meyer, M., & Tzeremes, N. G. (2020). Does corporate social responsibility impact firms’ innovation capacity? The indirect link between environmental & social governance implementation and innovation performance. Journal of Business Research, 119, 99–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.014 Caprara, G.  V., Steca, P., Zelli, A., & Capanna, C. (2005). A new scale for measuring adults’ prosocialness. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 2, 77–89. https://doi. org/10.1027/1015-­5759.21.2.77 Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. MIT Press. Chowkase, A.  A. (2022a). Nurturing concern for others in adolescents: A study of empathy, compassion, and prosocial Behavior. Doctoral dissertation, Purdue University. https://doi. org/10.25394/PGS.20387190.v1 Chowkase, A. A. (2022b). Three C’s conception of giftedness: A call for a paradigm shift. Gifted Education International, 38(3), 404–411. https://doi.org/10.1177/02614294211064703 Chowkase, A. A., & Watve, S. (2022). From I to we: The three C’s conception of gifted education. In The Palgrave handbook of transformational giftedness for education (pp. 61–85). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­3-­030-­91618-­3_4 Churchman, C. W. (1967). Wicked problems. Management Science, 14(4), B-141–B-146. https:// doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.14.4.B141 Clark, K., & James, K. (1999). Justice and positive and negative creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 12(4), 311–320. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1204_9 Clark, M.  S., & Mills, J. (1994). Communal and exchange relationships: Controversies and research. In E. Erber & R. Gilmour (Eds.), Theoretical frameworks for personal relationships (pp. 29–42). Lawrence Erlbaum. Craft, A. (2008). Trusteeship, wisdom and the creative future of education? UNESCO Observatory: Journal of Multi-Disciplinary Research in the Arts, 1(3), 1–20. http://web.education.unimelb. edu.au/UNESCO/pdfs/ejournals/craft.pdf Cropley, D. H., Cropley, A. J., Kaufman, J. C., & Runco, M. A. (Eds.). (2010). The dark side of creativity. Cambridge University Press. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2014). Society, culture, and person: A systems view of creativity. In I. M. Csikszentmihalyi (Ed.), The systems model of creativity: The collected works of Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi (pp. 47–61). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­94-­017-­9085-­7_4 Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 113–126. Doron, E. (2017). Fostering creativity in school aged children through perspective taking and visual media based short term intervention program. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 23, 150–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2016.12.003 Forgeard, M. (2022). Prosocial motivation and creativity in the arts and sciences: Qualitative and quantitative evidence. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000435 Fuller, R. B., & Kuromiya, K. (1981). Critical path. St. Martin’s Press. George, J. M. (2007). 9 Creativity in organizations. The Academy of Management Annals, 1(1), 439–477. https://doi.org/10.1080/078559814 Glăveanu, V. P. (2015). Creativity as a sociocultural act. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 49(3), 165–180. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.94

86

A. A. Chowkase et al.

Glăveanu, V. P., Hanchett Hanson, M., Baer, J., Barbot, B., Clapp, E. P., Corazza, G. E., Hennessey, B., Kaufman, J. C., Lebuda, I., Lubart, T., Montuori, A., Ness, I. J., Plucker, J., Reiter-Palmon, R., Sierra, Z., Simonton, D. K., Neves-Pereira, M. S., & Sternberg, R. J. (2020). Advancing creativity theory and research: A socio-cultural manifesto. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 54(3), 741–745. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.395 Goetz, J. L., Keltner, D., & Simon-Thomas, E. (2010). Compassion: An evolutionary analysis and empirical review. Psychological Bulletin, 136(3), 351–374. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018807 Grant, A.  M. (2007). Relational job design and the motivation to make a prosocial difference. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 393–417. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.24351328 Grant, A.  M. (2008). Does intrinsic motivation fuel the prosocial fire? Motivational synergy in predicting persistence, performance, and productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1), 48–58. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-­9010.93.1.48 Grant, A. M., & Berry, J. W. (2011). The necessity of others is the mother of invention: Intrinsic and prosocial motivations, perspective taking, and creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 54(1), 73–96. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.59215085 Haidt, J. (2003). The moral emotions. In R. J. Davidson, K. R. Scherer, & H. H. Goldsmith (Eds.), Handbook of affective sciences (pp. 852–870). Oxford University Press. Hennessey, B. A. (2019). Motivation and creativity. In J. C. Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of creativity (2nd ed., pp. 374–395). Cambridge University Press. Humboldt, W.  V. (1836). Über die Verschiedenheit des menschlichen Sprachbaues und ihren Einfluss auf die geistige Entwicklung des Menschengeschlechts. Königlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften. James, K., Clark, K., & Cropanzano, R. (1999). Positive and negative creativity in groups, institutions, and organizations: A model and theoretical extension. Creativity Research Journal, 12(3), 211–226. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1203 Jinpa, T. (2015). A fearless heart: How the courage to be compassionate can transform our lives. Avery. Kapoor, H., & Kaufman, J. C. (2022). The evil within: The AMORAL model of dark creativity. Theory & Psychology, 32(3), 467–490. https://doi.org/10.1177/09593543221074326 Karwowski, M. (2014). Creative mindsets: Measurement, correlates, consequences. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8(1), 62–70. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034898 Kaufman, J.  C., & Glăveanu, V.  P. (2023). The creativity ethos: A palette of benevolent processes and outcomes. Possibility Studies & Society. Advance online publication. https://doi. org/10.1177/27538699231178154 Keltner, D. (2009). Born to be good: The science of a meaningful life. W. W. Norton & Company. Keltner, D., Marsh, J., Smith, J. A., & (Eds.). (2010). The compassionate instinct: The science of human goodness. W. W. Norton & Company. Kozbelt, A., & Kantrowitz, A. (2019). Talent and ability in drawing and visual art. In R.  F. Subotnik, P.  Olszewski-Kubilius, & F.  C. Worrell (Eds.), The psychology of high performance: Developing human potential into domain-specific talent (pp. 311–343). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000120-­015 Leiberg, S., Klimecki, O., & Singer, T. (2011). Short-term compassion training increases prosocial behavior in a newly developed prosocial game. PLoS ONE, 6(3). https://doi.org/10.1371/ journal.pone.0017798 Marland Jr., S. P. (1971). Education of the gifted and talented – Volume 1: Report to the Congress of the United States by the US Commissioner of Education. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED056243 Mitchell, I. K., & Walinga, J. (2017). The creative imperative: The role of creativity, creative problem solving and insight as key drivers for sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production, 140, 1872–1884. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.162 Mumford, M. D., Giorgini, V., Gibson, C., & Mecca, J. (2013). Creative thinking: Processes, strategies and knowledge. In K.  Thomas & J.  Chan (Eds.), Handbook of research on creativity (pp. 249–264). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9780857939814.00029

6  Concerned Creativity to Counteract Concerning Creativity

87

O’Connor, A. J., Nemeth, C. J., & Akutsu, S. (2013). Consequences of beliefs about the malleability of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 25, 155–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/1040041 9.2013.783739 Plucker, J.  A., Beghetto, R.  A., & Dow, G.  T. (2004). Why isn’t creativity more important to educational psychologists? Potentials, pitfalls, and future directions in creativity research. Educational Psychologist, 39(2), 83–96. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3902_1 Renzulli, J. S. (2016). The three-ring conception of giftedness: A developmental model for promoting creative productivity. In S.  M. Reis (Ed.), Reflections on gifted education: Critical works by Joseph S. Renzulli and colleagues (pp. 55–90). Prufrock Press Inc.. Richter, A. W., Hirst, G., van Knippenberg, D., & Baer, M. (2012). Creative self-efficacy and individual creativity in team contexts: Cross-level interactions with team informational resources. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(6), 1282–1290. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029359 Runco, M. A., & Acar, S. (2019). Divergent thinking. In J. C. Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 224–254). Cambridge University Press. https://doi. org/10.1017/9781316979839.013 Runco, M. A., & Chand, I. (1995). Cognition and creativity. Educational Psychology Review, 7, 243–267. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02213373 Runco, M.  A., & Jaeger, G. (2012). The standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 24, 92–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2012.650092 Schwartz, S. H. (2007). Les valeurs de base de la personne: théorie, mesures et applications [Basic human values: Theory, measurement, and applications]. Revue Française de Sociologie, 47(4), 929–968. https://doi.org/10.3917/rfs.474.0929 Simonton, D. K. (2008). Creativity and genius. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 679–698). The Guilford Press. https://doi. org/10.4135/9781526463074.n8 Sternberg, R. J. (2021a). Positive creativity. In A. Kostic & D. Chadee (Eds.), Current research in positive psychology (pp. 33–42). Palgrave Macmillan. Sternberg, R.  J. (2021b). Transformational creativity: The link between creativity, wisdom, and the solution of global problems. Philosophies, 6(3), 75. https://doi.org/10.3390/ philosophies6030075 Sternberg, R. J. (2022). Identification for utilization, not merely possession, of gifts: What matters is not gifts but rather deployment of gifts. Gifted Education International, 38(3), 354–361. https://doi.org/10.1177/02614294211013345 Sternberg, R. J., Ambrose, D., & Karami, S. (Eds.). (2022). The Palgrave handbook of transformational giftedness for education. Palgrave Macmillan. Sternberg, R. J., & Chowkase, A. (2021). When we teach for positive creativity, what exactly do we teach for? Education Sciences, 11(5), 237. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11050237 Sternberg, R. J., Chowkase, A., Desmet, O., Karami, S., Landy, J., & Lu, J. (2021). Beyond transformational giftedness. Education Sciences, 11(5), 192. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11050192 Sternberg, R.  J., & Karami, S. (2021). An 8P theoretical framework for understanding creativity and theories of creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 56(1), 55–78. https://doi. org/10.1002/jocb.516 Subotnik, R. F., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Worrell, F. C. (Eds.). (2019). The psychology of high performance: Developing human potential into domain-specific talent. American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000120-­000 Takeuchi, H., Taki, Y., Sekiguchi, A., Nouchi, R., Kotozaki, Y., Nakagawa, S., Miyauchi, C. M., Iizuka, K., Yokoyama, R., Shinada, T., Yamamoto, Y., Hanawa, S., Araki, T., & Hashizume, H. (2014). Creativity measured by divergent thinking is associated with two axes of autistic characteristics. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 921. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00921 Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2011). Creative self-efficacy development and creative performance over time. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(2), 277–293. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020952

88

A. A. Chowkase et al.

Tromp, C. H., & Sternberg, R. J. (2022). Dynamic creativity: A person x task x situation interaction framework. Journal of Creative Behavior, 56(4), 553–565. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.551 Wallas, G. (1926). The art of thought. Harcourt, Brace, and Company. Walsh, C., Chappell, K., & Craft, A. (2017). A co-creativity theoretical framework to foster and evaluate the presence of wise humanising creativity in virtual learning environments (VLEs). Thinking Skills and Creativity, 24, 228–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2017.01.001 Zaki, J. (2014). Empathy: A motivated account. Psychological Bulletin, 140(6), 1608–1647. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037679

Chapter 7

Deploying Creativity for Good: How Engineers Solve Worthy Problems David H. Cropley

Benevolent Creativity The traditional view of creativity, broadly defined, is positive and benevolent (e.g., Cropley, D. H. 2010b; Cropley, A. J. 2010a). Creativity is, in everyday terms, something that nice people do and creativity results in good things, such as works of art, poems, and music. Indeed, it is this long-standing, positive view of creativity, and the benevolence bias (Cropley & Cropley, 2019) that follows, that may be responsible for popular myths and misconceptions (Patston et  al., 2018), including the widely held belief that creativity is synonymous with art. Under this premise of positive self-actualisation, which we can trace back, at the very least, to scholars such as Maslow (1962), the psychology of creativity has developed, in particular since 1950, a comprehensive framework of the psychological and social factors that contribute to creativity. Typically referred to as the “4Ps” (Rhodes, 1961; Barron, 1969) this framework recognises that a creative output (the Product: novel and effective) results from the interaction of who we are (the Person: attitudes and dispositions), how we think (the Process: divergent and convergent cognition), and where we work (the Press, or Place: the physical and social environment). This systems model of creativity (Fig. 7.1) not only describes the factors that contribute to creativity but also emphasises the interdependencies between them (Cropley, 2015a). More specifically, these psychological and social factors actually reinforce the benevolent, transformative view of creativity. A creative product is characterised by newness (novelty), and by its ability to solve a problem (relevance/effectiveness). A creative person is one who is open to new ideas, optimistic, and tolerant of

D. H. Cropley (*) University of South Australia, UniSA STEM, Adelaide, SA, Australia e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2024 R. J. Sternberg, S. Karami (eds.), Transformational Creativity, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-51590-3_7

89

90

D. H. Cropley

Fig. 7.1 A systems model of creativity Table 7.1  Positive (benevolent) factors associated with creativity Factor Person Process Press/place Product

Example Ego strength; flexibility; openness; optimism; self-confidence Divergence; unconventionality; combination; surprise; intuition Autonomy; recognition; resources; support; time; opportunity Novelty; redirection; redefinition; renewal; effectiveness

uncertainty. The cognitive processes central to creativity are focused on finding answers to questions, whether open or closed, and resolving uncertainty. Finally, it is a supportive, congenial, positive workplace or classroom that helps to foster and stimulate creativity. Table 7.1 summarises key benevolent psychological and social factors typically associated with creativity (e.g., Cropley & Cropley, 2009; Cropley, 2015a; Feist, 2019).

Creativity in the Twenty-First Century In the early twenty-first century, the generally positive, benevolent characterisation of creativity has been strengthened by the emergence of the so-called Fourth Industrial Revolution. In a world that is digitalising rapidly—that is, a world that is increasingly augmented by cyber-physical systems, AI, robotics, and Big Data (Cropley & Cropley, 2021)—it is understood that the future of work will see a sharp delineation based around these technologies. Put simply, as digital technologies are able to take over more and more of the algorithmic, predictable cognitive and physical labour previously performed by humans, and do so more efficiently, the focus of human labour will concentrate into those tasks—non-algorithmic and unpredictable—that digital technologies are not suited to (Frey & Osborne, 2017). The recent

7  Deploying Creativity for Good: How Engineers Solve Worthy Problems

91

emergence of practical, widely available generative AI (e.g., ChatGPT in late 2022) reinforces this fact. Chief among the skills that are not a strength of AI is (WEF, 2020) the ability to find novel, effective solutions to open-ended, ill-defined, unprecedented problems. In other words, creativity has become a positive, benevolent, sought-after, vital human ability. Indeed, in the long run, it may be that human creativity will be seen as a commodity: that is, an essential input to a value-adding process (work) in the era of digitalisation (see Cropley & Oppert, 2020 for a discussion of creativity as a commodity).Creativity, however, is more than a skill. Skills, in general (Cropley & Cropley, 2021), tend to be very specific, narrow in focus, time-sensitive, and non-­transferable. Thus, the ability to milk a cow is a skill. Competencies such as creativity, on the other hand, are more general in nature, broader in application, enduring, and transferable. Crucially, competencies are founded on domain knowledge (e.g., mechanical engineering), draw on both domain-general (e.g., divergent thinking) and domain-specific (e.g., solving differential equations) skills, and are shaped by a range of attitudes and dispositions (e.g., tolerance for uncertainty, risk-taking, openness) (Fig. 7.2). In fact, this positive, transformational view of creativity—the idea that creativity is a vital competency driving human development—is nothing new. Since the earliest days of anatomically modern humans, the survival of the species has depended on our capacity to develop novel and effective technological solutions to problems stemming from change in our external environment. Thus, without a well-developed, positive, benevolent capacity to find creative solutions to problems of shelter, transportation, food production, communication, health, and more (see Cropley, 2019, 2020a, for a range of examples), it is doubtful that humans would have survived the effects of past ice-ages, plagues, and other forms of environmental, economic, demographic, health, and social change. If this is the case—if humans are so adept at positive, transformational creativity—then what is the problem? Fig. 7.2  Creativity as competency

92

D. H. Cropley

A Dark Side to Creativity? Creativity has long been regarded as a positive, self-actualising ability (James et al., 1999; James & Taylor, 2010). Whether in the form of great works of art and soaring musical compositions, or indeed, inventions such as medicines and vaccines, computers or combustion engines, these creative products add value, solve problems, and enhance our lives. It follows that all that is required to ensure the positive, transformational deployment of creativity is to develop the competency described above: in other words, teach people to think and act creatively. Indeed, with the emergence of digitalisation, as well as the increasing pace of change, the importance of developing this creativity competency has perhaps never been greater.Unfortunately, the long-standing, benevolent view of creativity has masked, or perhaps overlooked, one important consideration. While a great deal of creativity has been, and is, directed towards addressing problems of a positive and transformational nature, there is nothing that requires creativity to be, by default, benevolent. Indeed, beginning in earnest in the first decade of the twenty-first century, scholars began to explore this dark side of creativity. Is creativity universally good, or can it lead to bad outcomes? Can creativity be, not positive and transformational, and not even just neutral, or accidentally bad, but deliberately, intentionally harmful? Moreover, if the possibility of a dark side to creativity exists, what does that do to the idea of creativity as a vital twenty-first-century competency? If creativity can be dangerous or misused, for example, then should it be widely developed and nurtured, or should we be more discerning in how it is taught, and to whom? In fact, the first exploration of a dark side to creativity in the modern era can be found in the work of McLaren (1993). James et al. (1999) then developed the idea that negative creativity could lead to inadvertent harm. However, it was not until Cropley (2005) and Cropley et al. (2008) that scholars began to explore the possibility that creativity could be used deliberately to cause harm. This notion, quite distinct from merely negative creativity, was labelled malevolent and has given rise to a strong thread of research activity in the period since 2008 (for a summary, see Cropley & Cropley, 2019). Examples of malevolent creativity—the generation of novel and effective products with the intent to cause harm—range from modern terrorist attacks such as those of 9/11 (Cropley et  al., 2008) to ancient attempts to defraud people through the wetting of spices or the substitution of less valuable metals for gold (see Cropley & Cropley, 2013). Critical for the present discussion is the following question: if creativity can be bad, that is, if it is not, by default, positive and transformational, then can it simply be taught as a vital twenty-first-century competency? Before this question can be answered, other issues must be considered. For example, what factors actually determine the valence—the intrinsic goodness/badness—of creativity? Is it something other than the traditional “core” elements of creativity—the 4Ps—that need to be addressed if creativity is to be steered down a positive, transformational path? Or do we need to refine our understanding of the 4Ps, to bring them into line with modern notions of malevolent creativity? Furthermore, do we have to be more discerning regarding the development of creativity, especially given the current strong interest in creativity resulting from digitalisation and the future of work? Is

7  Deploying Creativity for Good: How Engineers Solve Worthy Problems

93

creativity, for example, something that can only be trusted to certain individuals? Lastly, how does a discipline such as engineering tackle the paradox that malevolent creativity presents? In other words, how is creativity deployed in engineering in such a way as to minimise (or eliminate) the bad and maximise the good? The question, at least for engineers, may be not so much how do engineers solve worthy problems, but how do engineers develop worthy solutions?! Sternberg and Karami (2022) expand the 4Ps to address moral issues of this type, for example, through a deeper discussion of the purpose of creativity.

 owards Positive, Transformational Creativity: From What T and How, to When and Why Much of the modern era of creativity research, dated from Guilford (1950), has been focused on developing a detailed understanding of the psychology of creativity. Thus, the 4Ps have been the framework for a great deal of research that describes the individual personal properties, the attitudes and dispositions, the cognitive processes, the environmental factors, let us say, of stereotypical creativity, and the broader process by which creative ideas are turned into viable, practical solutions (innovation). However, a great deal of this research has been rather static in nature, in the sense that the focus has been on the generative core of creativity: idea generation. Nevertheless, Guilford (1959) made an early, dynamic link between the 4Ps and stages of creative problem-solving (i.e., innovation) defining a model comprising four stages (Fig. 7.3). Crucially, he noted that the key cognitive process underpinning innovation is not exclusively divergent or convergent, but changes, depending on the stage of the process. Thus, divergent thinking, for example, is most important in Idea Generation, but convergent thinking is key in Idea Evaluation. Cropley and Cropley (2012) took this concept further, developing the Innovation Phase Model (IPM). Central to this model is the notion that in every stage of creative problem-solving (innovation) there is a condition, for each of the 4Ps, that favours or facilitates that stage of the process. Creativity, in its broader, applied sense is a dynamic interaction of the 4Ps with the different stages by which a

Stage

1 Problem Definition

Dominant Cognition

Convergent

2

3

Idea Generation

Idea Evaluation

Divergent

Convergent

Fig. 7.3  Stages of creativity and associated cognition

4 Solution Validation Convergent

94

D. H. Cropley

problem is identified and a solution devised. This approach thus encouraged a highly differentiated view of the role that the 4Ps play in creativity/innovation. There is no one-size-fits-all constellation of attitudes, dispositions, cognitive skills, or environmental factors that lead to creativity, per se. Rather, the key to creativity, especially as a component of a problem-solving discipline such as engineering, is being able to activate the right constellation, at the right time (Cropley & Cropley, 2015). This has proven valuable as a mechanism for optimising the innovative capacity of organisations (e.g., Cropley, 2016b; Cropley & Cropley, 2017; Xing et al., 2020). As a framework for guiding the benevolent deployment of creativity, the Innovation Phase Model highlights not only the declarative (what) and procedural (how) aspects of creativity (e.g., what factors are important for creativity, how to think divergently) but also the conditional (when and why) knowledge necessary for the successful development and deployment of this important competency. Recent research in malevolent creativity has, perhaps unwittingly, shed light on a similar shift in thinking. In the search to understand the misapplication of creativity, scholars have frequently focused a great deal of attention on aspects of personality, for example psychopathy, narcissism, and Machiavellianism (the so-called Dark Triad; Jonason & Webster, 2010), in an attempt to explain why some individuals might engage in malevolent—that is, deliberately harmful—creativity. This makes sense: perhaps malevolent creativity arises from malevolent personalities, with psychopathy, for example, overwhelming other factors in the creative problem-solving process, leading to creative, albeit it harmful, products. Malevolent creativity arises, in other words, not because of a difference in what is critical for creativity (e.g., risk-taking), or in how people think (e.g., divergent thinking), but in when and why they choose to develop harmful solutions. Although the answer to differences in benevolent and malevolent creativity may well lie in conditional matters (when and why), there are at least two problems with the hypothesis that focuses on these conditional questions at the level of personal properties (i.e., personality). First, the findings of studies exploring correlations between elements of the Dark Triad (e.g., psychopathy) and elements of creativity (e.g., divergent thinking) typically find, at best, weak positive (albeit significant) correlations (e.g., McBain et  al., 2017; Batey et  al., 2022; Szabo et  al., 2022). Second, possibly explaining the first point, characteristics like psychopathy are very rare in the general population, with even sub-clinical levels of psychopathy occurring in only approximately 1% of the population (Hart & Storey, 2013). Thus, regardless of the distribution of creativity scores in any random sample, the likelihood of finding individuals who are both psychopathic (in a clinical sense) and highly creative is exceedingly low. Even Batey et al. (2022), with a sample of >300 people, would be lucky to have 1 individual who was a creative psychopath and therefore capable of malevolent creativity. Another problem with a focus on conditional issues (when and why) at the level of the person, as an explanation of the differences between benevolent and malevolent creativity, is that it makes the cause of malevolent creativity, in effect, a psychological (or even physiological) defect. Ermer et  al. (2012), for example, provide evidence that psychopathy results from a fundamentally different, and permanent,

7  Deploying Creativity for Good: How Engineers Solve Worthy Problems

95

brain structure. If that defect is incurable or untreatable, then the only way to prevent malevolent creativity is to block all creativity! The only pathway forward under this set of conditions is to limit access to creativity. In other words, do not teach creativity, because a psychopath might then misuse it to cause harm. In fact, as already indicated, there seems little reason for concern. Not only is the empirical evidence for a link between psychopathy and [malevolent] creativity tenuous, but it is extremely rare. Even if the correlation was strongly positive, or if the former conclusively caused the latter, would it be necessary to worry about this link if it is only possible in a minute proportion of the population? The overwhelming need for creativity in society more broadly means that the risk (of fostering malevolent creativity) is far outweighed by the benefits (of benevolent creativity). However, while conditional factors may be the wrong pathway to understanding difference between benevolent and malevolent creativity at the level of the person, they may well explain these differences when examined elsewhere in the broader system of creativity (Fig. 7.1). In other words, what if malevolent creativity is not the work of a creative psychopath (a risk-taking, divergent thinker with a malevolent psychological/physiological defect) but simply the result of a stereotypically creative individual who, with no underlying psychological or physiological defect, chooses to cause harm for some other reason? Perhaps we are just looking for the explanation in the wrong place, or at the wrong level in the system?

External Conditional Factors as Drivers of Creativity In fact, the notion of conditional factors as drivers of creativity is not entirely new. Cropley (2010b), for example, attempted to explain differences in benevolent and malevolent creativity in terms of conditional factors external to the system as described in Fig. 7.1. This scholarship suggested that the intent of the actor was an important determinant of the valence of creativity. Cropley (2014) expanded on this theme, suggesting that the driver of individual intent, as well as of the influence of the organisational press, is a framework of ethics and morals. Harris et al. (2014) explored a similar theme from the point of view of the impulse, or driver, of creativity: problem construction. They also linked underpinning ethical and moral factors to the valence of the outcome of creativity. Further scholarship on the relationship of morals and ethics to creativity is considered, in a broader sense, by Li and Csikszentmihalyi (2014) and also Sternberg (2014). The valence of creativity—is a creative outcome benevolent or malevolent?—is therefore hypothesised to result from three external conditional factors: • the problem impulse: why am I doing this? • the individual intent: what am I trying to achieve? • the organisational influence: what else is shaping this activity? More recently, Cropley et al. (2022) examined the same fundamental questions, in the context of creativity and the role of artificial intelligence (AI), suggesting that all creativity begins with the external, conditional question why: why are we creative?

96

D. H. Cropley

Fig. 7.4  External drivers of the system of creativity

If external, conditional factors—impulse, intent, and influence—are critical to determining the valence of creative products, then it follows that malevolent creativity results not from internal factors such as elevated levels of psychopathy in the individual, or faulty divergent thinking, but rather from misdirected impulses, misguided intentions, and bad influences. This, in turn, suggests that the valence of creativity is a matter of external moral or ethical factors in the broader environment shaping impulse, intent, and influence (Fig. 7.4). Achieving positive, transformational creativity in a field such as engineering (or, indeed, in any field) therefore requires two actions. First, creativity—the what and the how—must be taught. It must be developed as a competency, deliberately, and systematically. This is, however, a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for worthy, benevolent creative solutions. Second, the ethics and morals that guide how that capacity for creativity will then be applied—the impulse, intent, and influence—must be developed and refined. How are these two pre-requisites addressed in the engineering profession?

Developing Creativity in Engineers Engineers develop technological solutions to problems arising from human needs. The core of engineering therefore is design (Buhl, 1960; Horenstein, 2002; Brockman, 2009). Because the problems to be solved are frequently new and

7  Deploying Creativity for Good: How Engineers Solve Worthy Problems

97

unprecedented, effectiveness alone is not always sufficient as the key characteristic of solutions. Consistent with the Standard Definition of Creativity (Runco & Jaeger, 2012), novelty is therefore frequently necessary in the solutions that engineers develop. This combined need for effectiveness and novelty in engineering design places creativity at the centre of the profession (Cropley, 2015a, 2020b). This suggests that to be an effective, creative engineer the key is to develop the competency, outlined in Fig. 7.2, specific to the engineering domain. It might be assumed, moreover, that the conditional factors outlined in the previous section—the when and the why of creativity—are what might be lacking in the quest to develop worthy (benevolent/creative) solutions to (worthy) problems in engineering. However, this is generally not the case in engineering education. Ethics is typically well addressed in tertiary-level engineering programmes, supported by strong mandates from accreditation agencies (e.g., ABET in the USA, the Engineering Council in the UK, Engineers Australia in Australia) and by the foundational concepts of the discipline more broadly (e.g., Fleddermann, 2004; Dieter & Schmidt, 2012). The barrier to the development of worthy (benevolent/creative) solutions in engineering is therefore firmly a deficiency in the what and the how of creativity. This is despite efforts to embed creativity, innovation, and other associated attributes in engineering curricula (e.g., Radcliffe, 2005), and despite the considerable attention among employer groups, professional bodies, and accreditation agencies (see Cropley, 2015b for a more detailed discussion of this issue in relation to engineering). It is also acknowledged (Kazerounian & Foley, 2007) that creativity has largely failed to make its way into the engineering curriculum (Cropley, 2016a). Cropley (2015b) offered three reasons for the failure to embed creativity in engineering, each defined as a problem in the way that engineers are educated at tertiary level. These are as follows: • A problem of overspecialisation—an excessive focus on narrow and deep engineering specialisations, leaving little room for creativity, and other associated competencies. • A problem of pseudo-expertise—a tendency to concentrate on factual, declarative discipline knowledge at the expense of the conditional and procedural knowledge needed to develop the genuine, adaptive expertise that drives professional engineering creativity. • A problem of a lack of knowledge—bluntly, a poor understanding of creativity among engineering educators. Engineers don’t understand what makes something and someone creative, and therefore don’t know how to develop creativity in others. From the perspective of the engineering profession, spanning education, employers, and professional bodies, the resulting engineering culture, insofar as it relates to creativity and innovation, is dominated by convergent and analytical thinking. Cropley (2017) has suggested that the dominance of a reductionist, analytical mindset in engineering is driving the problems identified above and is leading to the development of i-shaped professionals (as opposed to the desired T-shaped

98

D. H. Cropley

professionals described, e.g., by Oskam (2009)). Furthermore, there is substantial, and long-standing, evidence to support the existence of a predominant cognitive style in engineering that favours some phases of innovation but inhibits others. Kolb and Wolfe (1981), over than 40 years ago, described this as the professional deformation of engineers (p. ii), recognising that this mentality in the profession was leading to a damaging inflexibility in cognitive style. More recently, Lumsdaine and Lumsdaine (1995) noted a strong preference for a logical, analytical thinking style among engineering faculty, with their data suggesting that students actually shifted away from a preference for creative thinking over the four years of their engineering degrees. In other words, if anything, engineering education is actively inhibiting the ability of students to develop benevolent, creative solutions. More recently, Cropley (2017) has suggested that a fundamental, top-down reorientation of engineering education is necessary to address the weaknesses in relation to creativity in the discipline.

Worthy Problems and Worthy Solutions Notwithstanding the potential for malevolent creativity both generally and in engineering, and the need for ethical and moral guardrails to guide the impulse that drives creativity, the individual intent, and the organisational influence, some problems are, by their nature, unequivocally positive, benevolent, and transformational. Despite the issues identified in the previous section, especially in relation to the what and how of creativity in the engineering discipline, anatomically modern humans have been developing creative (worthy) solutions to worthy problems for thousands of years. These have addressed problems ranging from the physiological (the need for food, warmth, and shelter) to the psychological (the need for love, prestige, and the fulfilment of individual potential). When positive impulse, intent, and influence align with a high capacity for creativity, engineers have demonstrated a remarkable ability to find worthy solutions to worthy problems. To close this chapter, therefore, one example serves to illustrate the power of technological creativity to transform societies, in spite of the imperfections of how engineers are prepared for this task in the modern era. The first industrial revolution, which began in the mid-1700s in England, brought about many changes to that society. New job opportunities in factories attracted people away from traditional, rural employment into cities such as London. This rapid urbanisation—London’s population grew from roughly 750,000 in 1780 to 1.4 million by 1815—brought with it many challenges. Not least of these were problems of over-crowding, sanitation, and health. By 1830, London’s waterways were badly contaminated. More than 200,000 cesspools, used to collect human waste, went largely unattended in the city, with the waste finding its way into creeks, wells, and rivers. The primitive drains that existed merely funnelled more and more waste into rivers and water supplies, exacerbating the problem. The consequence was that, by 1831, London experienced its first major

7  Deploying Creativity for Good: How Engineers Solve Worthy Problems

99

epidemic of Cholera (Cadbury, 2012). However, it would not be until 1856, after several further deadly outbreaks, that work would begin in earnest on the solution to this problem. The impulse—the worthy problem facing engineers—was the question of how to effectively dispose of human waste in a large city (Cropley, 2019), in order to safeguard the health and well-being of the population. The solution that Joseph Bazalgette—Chief Engineer of London Metropolitan Board of Works—would devise consisted of 132 km of large, underground, main sewers, fed by more than 1800 km of smaller street sewers. This sewer system made use of the natural topography of London, combined with pumping stations, to expel all of the city’s waste into the Thames, far downstream and away from the sources used to supply London with its drinking water. Bazalgette’s system was highly relevant and effective, designed with such a large margin for future growth that the system is still able to meet the needs of the modern city. The system represented not merely an incremental improvement to the prevailing system of cesspools and drains that contaminated drinking water, but a radical reimagining of what was necessary to eliminate the problems caused by the contamination of the Thames by human waste. In addition to satisfying the basic requirements of relevance, effectiveness, and novelty (i.e., creativity), the sewer system was also highly elegant. It was described by a reporter in The Observer newspaper, in April 1861, as “the most beautiful and wonderful work of modern times”, giving rise also to the famous Embankment that adorns much of the Thames River in central London. That structure, which reclaimed some 22 acres of land from the river, encloses parts of Bazalgette’s main sewer as well as an underground rail line. It also supports a main road and walkway and is an important element protecting parts of the city from flooding. The sewer system designed and deployed by Joseph Bazalgette in London in the mid-nineteenth century represents an excellent example of how engineers develop worthy (i.e., benevolently creative) solutions to worthy problems.

Summary Creativity is enjoying a renewed focus in education, largely driven by concerns about the future of work. As societies grapple with the impact of AI on work, it is generally accepted that human work, in the future, will focus on unpredictable, non-­ algorithmic tasks at the core of which are competencies such as creativity. With this renewed focus on the importance and necessity of creativity comes a renewed focus on questions of how creativity is developed (i.e., taught) and deployed. Although questions about the development and deployment of creativity are not new, more recent scholarship on the dark side of creativity has added a novel dimension. In order to understand how any domain or discipline—not least engineering— develops and deploys creativity for good, it is first necessary to understand that creativity can be bad. The existence of a dark side to creativity then opens up new perspectives on the things that matter in the development and deployment of creativity. For example,

100

D. H. Cropley

whereas, in the past, it might have been sufficient to consider only what personal properties, cognitive processes, and environmental factors affected creativity, and how these could be enhanced—in other words, a declarative and procedural view of creativity—the possibility of a dark side draws attention to another focus. If creativity can be bad or good, then conditional factors (primarily, why is creativity deployed) become more important. These conditional factors direct attention to factors external to the traditional system of person, process, press, and product (the 4Ps) in creativity. Under this revised view of creativity, development and deployment is therefore shaped by two main focuses: (a) what matters for creativity and how this is fostered, and (b) the role of intent, impulse, and influence, and how moral and ethical factors drive these. It is tempting to assume that the former is already well understood, while the latter requires further work. However, in the domain of engineering, this is not the case. Engineers understand the importance of ethics and morals, and the impact these have on technological problem-solving. The missing piece of the puzzle, notwithstanding decades of creativity research, is in the declarative and procedural aspects of creativity, as applied to the engineering domain. Thus, the key to the development and deployment of creativity for good, in engineering, is not the ethical and moral dimension, but actually the development of creativity!

References Barron, F. X. (1969). Creative person and creative process. Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Batey, M., Hughes, D., Mosley, A., Owens, C., & Furnham, A. (2022). Psychopathy and openness-­ to-­experience as predictors of malevolent and benevolent creativity. Personality and Individual Differences, 196, 111715. Brockman, J. B. (2009). Introduction to engineering: Modeling and problem solving. John Wiley & Sons Inc. Buhl, H. R. (1960). Creative engineering design. Iowa State University Press. Cadbury, D. (2012). Seven wonders of the industrial world (text only edition): HarperCollins UK. Cropley, D. H. (2005). Eleven principles of creativity and terrorism. Paper presented at the Fourth Homeland Security Summit and Exposition, . Cropley, A. J. (2010a). Creativity in the classroom: The dark side. In D. H. Cropley, A. J. Cropley, J. C. Kaufman, & M. A. Runco (Eds.), The dark side of creativity (pp. 297–315). Cambridge University Press. Cropley, A. J., & Cropley, D. H. (2009). Fostering creativity: A diagnostic approach for education and organizations. Hampton Press. Cropley, D.  H. (2010b). Summary—The dark side of creativity: A differentiated model. In D. H. Cropley, A. J. Cropley, J. C. Kaufman, & M. A. Runco (Eds.), The dark side of creativity. Cambridge University Press. Cropley, D. H. (2014). Engineering, ethics and creativity: N’er the twain shall meet? In S. Moran, D.  H. Cropley, & J.  C. Kaufman (Eds.), The ethics of creativity (pp.  152–169). Palgrave Macmillan Ltd.

7  Deploying Creativity for Good: How Engineers Solve Worthy Problems

101

Cropley, D.  H. (2015a). Creativity in engineering: Novel solutions to complex problems. Academic Press. Cropley, D. H. (2015b). Promoting creativity and innovation in engineering education. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 9(2), 161–171. Cropley, D. H. (2016a). Creativity and culture in engineering. In V. P. Glăveanu (Ed.), The Palgrave handbook of creativity and culture research (pp. 486–506). Palgrave Macmillan Ltd. Cropley, D.  H. (2016b). Measuring capacity for innovation in  local government organisations. Journal of Creativity and Business Innovation, 2(1), 31–45. Cropley, D.  H. (2017). Nurturing creativity in the engineering classroom. In R.  Beghetto & J.  C. Kaufman (Eds.), Nurturing creativity in the classroom (pp.  212–226). Cambridge University Press. Cropley, D. H. (2019). Homo Problematis Solvendis—Problem-solving man: A history of human creativity. Springer Nature. Cropley, D. H. (2020a). Engineering: The ultimate expression of creativity? In M. A. Runco & S. R. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity (Vol. 1, 3rd ed., pp. 434–439). Academic Press. Cropley, D. H. (2020b). Femina Problematis Solvendis—Problem solving woman: A history of the creativity of women. Springer Nature. Cropley, D. H., & Cropley, A. J. (2012). A psychological taxonomy of organizational innovation: Resolving the paradoxes. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 29–40. Cropley, D.  H., & Cropley, A.  J. (2013). Creativity and crime: A psychological approach. Cambridge University Press. Cropley, D. H., & Cropley, A. J. (2015). The psychology of innovation in organizations. Cambridge University Press. Cropley, D. H., & Cropley, A. J. (2017). Innovation capacity, organisational culture, and gender. European Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, 20(4), 493–510. Cropley, D.  H., & Cropley, A.  J. (2019). Malevolent creativity: Past, present and future. In J.  C. Kaufman & R.  J. Sternberg (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp.  677–690). Cambridge University Press. Cropley, D.  H., & Cropley, A.  J. (2021). Core capabilities for industry 4.0—Foundation of the cyber-psychology of engineering. Wbv Media. Cropley, D. H., Kaufman, J. C., & Cropley, A. J. (2008). Malevolent creativity: A functional model of creativity in terrorism and crime. Creativity Research Journal, 20(2), 105–115. Cropley, D. H., Madeiros, K., & Demadzic, A. (2022). Creativity and artificial intelligence: The integration of human and artificial cognition. In D.  Henriksen & P.  Mishra (Eds.), Creative provocations: Speculations on the future of creativity, technology & learning (pp.  19–34). Springer. Cropley, D. H., & Oppert, M. L. (2020). Commoditized creativity. In M. A. Runco & S. R. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity (Vol. 1, 3rd ed., pp. 167–171). Academic Press. Dieter, G.  E., & Schmidt, L.  C. (2012). Engineering design (5th ed.). McGraw-Hill Higher Education. Ermer, E., Cope, L. M., Nyalakanti, P. K., Calhoun, V. D., & Kiehl, K. A. (2012). Aberrant paralimbic gray matter in criminal psychopathy. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 121(3), 649–658. Feist, G. J. (2019). The function of personality in creativity: Updates on the creative personality. In J. C. Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 353–373). Cambridge University Press. Fleddermann, C. B. (2004). Engineering ethics (2nd ed.). Pearson Prentice Hall. Frey, C. B., & Osborne, M. A. (2017). The future of employment: How susceptible are jobs to computerisation? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 114, 254–280. Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5, 444–454. Guilford, J. P. (1959). Traits of creativity. In H. H. Anderson (Ed.), Creativity and its cultivation (pp. 142–161). Harper.

102

D. H. Cropley

Harris, D. J., Reiter-Palmon, R., & Ligon, G. S. (2014). Construction or demolition: Does problem construction influence the ethicality of creativity? In S. Moran, D. H. Cropley, & J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), The ethics of creativity (pp. 170–186). Palgrave Macmillan. Hart, S. D., & Storey, J. E. (2013). Clinical and forensic issues in the assessment of psychopathy. In R. K. Otto & I. B. Weiner (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Forensic psychology (Vol. 11, pp. 556–578). John Wiley and Sons. Horenstein, M. N. (2002). Design concepts for engineers (2nd ed.). : Prentice-Hall, Inc. James, K., Clark, K., & Cropanzano, R. (1999). Positive and negative creativity in groups, institutions, and organizations: A model and theoretical extension. Creativity Research Journal, 12(3), 211–226. James, K., & Taylor, A. (2010). Positive creativity and negative creativity (and unintended consequences). In D. H. Cropley, A. J. Cropley, J. C. Kaufman, & M. A. Runco (Eds.), The dark side of creativity (pp. 33–56). Cambridge University Press. Jonason, P. K., & Webster, G. D. (2010). The dirty dozen: A concise measure of the Dark Triad. Psychological assessment, 22(2), 420–432. Kazerounian, K., & Foley, S. (2007). Barriers to creativity in engineering education: A study of instructors and students perceptions. Journal of Mechanical Design, 129, 761–768. Kolb, D.  A., & Wolfe, D.  M. (1981). Professional education and career development: A cross sectional study of adaptive competencies in experiential learning. Case Western Reserve University. Li, Q., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2014). Moral creativity and creative morality. In S.  Moran, D. H. Cropley, & J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), The ethics of creativity (pp. 75–91). Palgrave Macmillan. Lumsdaine, M., & Lumsdaine, E. (1995). Thinking preferences of engineering students: Implications for curriculum restructuring. Journal of Engineering Education, 84(2), 193–204. Maslow, A. H. (1962). Creativity in self-actualizing people. In A. Maslow (Ed.), Toward a psychology of being. Van Nostrand. McBain, R. M. J., Cropley, D. H., & Kavanagh, P. S. (2017). The Devil made me do it: Press and personality in malevolent creativity. International Journal of Creativity and Problem Solving, 27(1), 21–44. McLaren, R. B. (1993). The dark side of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 6, 137–144. Oskam, I. F. (2009). T-shaped engineers for interdisciplinary innovation: An attractive perspective for young people as well as a must for innovative organisations. Paper presented at the 37th Annual Conference–Attracting students in Engineering, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Patston, T. P., Cropley, D. H., Marrone, R. L., & Kaufman, J. C. (2018). Teacher implicit beliefs of creativity: Is there an arts bias? Teaching and Teacher Education, 75, 366–374. Radcliffe, D. F. (2005). Innovation as a meta attribute for graduate engineers. International Journal of Engineering Education, 21(2), 194–199. Rhodes, M. (1961). An analysis of creativity. The Phi Delta Kappan, 42(7), 305–310. Runco, M. A., & Jaeger, G. J. (2012). The standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 92–96. Sternberg, R. J. (2014). Creativity in ethical reasoning. In S. Moran, D. H. Cropley, & J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), The ethics of creativity (pp. 62–74). Palgrave Macmillan. Sternberg, R. J., & Karami, S. (2022). An 8P theoretical framework for understanding creativity and theories of creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 56(1), 55–78. Szabo, E., Kormendi, A., Kurucz, G., Cropley, D. H., Olajos, T., & Pataky, N. (2022). Personality traits as predictors of malevolent creative ideation in offenders. Behavioral Sciences, 12(7), 242. World Economic Forum (WEF) (2020). The Future of Jobs Report 2020. Retrieved from Geneva, Switzerland: http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Future_of_Jobs_2020.pdf. Xing, K., Cropley, D. H., Oppert, M. L., & Singh, C. (2020). Readiness for digital innovation and industry 4.0 transformation: Studies on manufacturing industries in the city of Salisbury. In M. Kosaka, J. Wu, K. Xing, & S. Zhang (Eds.), Business innovation with new ICT in the Asia-­ Pacific: Case studies (pp. 155–176). Springer Nature.

Chapter 8

Nurturing Changemakers: Harnessing the Power of Service-Learning Pedagogy for Transformational Creativity Ophélie A. Desmet

Education is not just about acquiring knowledge; it’s about using that knowledge to positively impact the world. Education, particularly gifted and talented education, should nurture changemakers who apply their knowledge, talents, and creativity to contribute to the betterment of their communities and society. As such, promoting or fostering transformational creativity should be a central part of talent development programs. Transformational creativity refers to the creative process and outcomes that go beyond personal expression or aesthetic appeal. It involves using creative thinking and innovative ideas to address complex problems, effect meaningful change, or contribute to the betterment of society (Sternberg & Chowkase, 2021). Transformational creators aim to balance the interests of all affected parties, keeping in mind short- and long-term repercussions reflecting positive ethical values. Transformational creativity relies on perspective-taking, empathy, and compassion (Desmet & Roberts, 2022). Therefore, promoting transformational creativity should involve learning activities that are not only centered around creative thinking skills but around perspective-taking, empathy, and compassion as well. This chapter presents service-learning pedagogy as a relevant framework for transformational creativity education.

Transformational Creativity Creativity tends to be a highly valued trait in most of our society. However, creativity can manifest in both positive and negative ways. People may choose to use their creativity to develop assistive technology that may make our society a more O. A. Desmet (*) Department of Human Services, Converse Hall, Valdosta, GA, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2024 R. J. Sternberg, S. Karami (eds.), Transformational Creativity, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-51590-3_8

103

104

O. A. Desmet

inclusive one. Yet people may also choose to use their creativity to develop weapons of mass destruction. Generally, researchers agree that creativity involves generating novel and useful ideas or products within a social context (Kaufman & Sternberg, 2021; Plucker et al., 2004). Building upon this idea, positive creativity is then “the generation of an idea or product that is both novel and useful … but that also serves a positive, constructive function for the domain or field in which it is useful or effective and also for society” (Sternberg & Chowkase, 2021, p. 34). The scope and level of creativity, including positive creativity, can vary (Kaufman & Beghetto, 2009). Examples of positive creativity range from upcycling materials around the house to setting up a social entrepreneurship platform to create job opportunities for women from marginalized communities. Even simpler acts, such as teachers creating efficient emergency remote learning systems during a pandemic, demonstrate positive creativity. Positive creativity emerges when ideas and products serve individuals or groups in beneficial ways, in contrast to negative creativity, where novel and useful ideas are employed for negative or destructive purposes (James & Taylor, 2010). For example, skilled computer hackers may use their talents to spread malicious content or malware or creative leaders may use their talents to manipulate followers and incite hatred or harmful behaviors. Both are instances of negative creativity. Transformational creativity involves directing creative endeavors toward a common good (Sternberg & Chowkase, 2021). As such, it is an extension of positive creativity. While positive creativity serves the interests of individuals or groups in beneficial ways, transformational creativity goes beyond that to serve the collective interests of the world and its diverse stakeholders, with the common good representing the benefit or interest of all or most. It is related to transformational giftedness (Sternberg & Chowkase, 2021) in that transformational gifted individuals are those who seek to positively change the world at some level, which may happen through transformationally creative contributions. When it comes to transformational giftedness, a distinction has been made between self-transformational giftedness and other-transformational giftedness (Sternberg & Chowkase, 2021). Self-­ transformational giftedness refers to making a transformative, positive, and meaningful difference to oneself. Other-transformational giftedness refers to making a transformative, positive, and meaningful difference to the world and is most similar to the initial concept of transformational giftedness as discussed until now. As such, self-transformation may be a preliminary to other-transformational giftedness and perhaps transformational creativity. More on this later. As educators foster transformational creativity, they should be mindful that even seemingly objectively positive creations may have unintended negative consequences in the future or may not emphasize a common good over an individual or group interest. Intentionality plays a crucial role in determining whether products and ideas are truly transformational, as well as the considerations involved. Transformational creations are distinguished by their intent to serve the common good. They emerge from creative processes that carefully weigh the interests of all affected parties, explore the short- and long-term consequences from various perspectives, and are guided by positive ethical values. For example, according to this

8  Nurturing Changemakers: Harnessing the Power of Service-Learning Pedagogy…

105

reasoning, Artificial Intelligence designed as a weapon to displace jobs, or to spread biased information, would not be considered a positive or transformational creation. Conversely, Artificial Intelligence designed to enhance our medical research or optimize renewable energy generation would be seen as a transformational creation. Although both products involve Artificial Intelligence, the intent and considerations made during the creative process greatly differ, allowing us to differentiate between positive, negative, and transformational creative products. There is an increasing need to foster transformational creativity, equipping individuals with the tools to consider the short- and long-term consequences of their creative endeavors for themselves, the communities they serve, and the society as a whole. Global challenges such as natural disasters, political extremism, and the adverse impacts of technology demonstrate that solely encouraging creative thinking is insufficient. Educators should foster skills, values, and attitudes that promote transformational intentions and considerations throughout the creative process, including empathy, perspective-taking, and a commitment to service (Desmet & Roberts, 2022; Sternberg & Chowkase, 2021). Transformational creativity plays a pivotal role in driving community development at local and global levels. Community development is driven by creative thinkers who harness their creative abilities to make positive impacts in the world. Therefore, it is crucial to empower students to create but also to critically examine the consequences of their creative outputs. Transformational creativity further plays a vital role in students’ personal growth and relates to the aforementioned self-transformational giftedness. By nurturing creativity, students learn critical thinking, effective communication, problem-­ solving, and meaning-making (Starko, 2017)—all essential aspects of personal development. Fostering transformational creativity requires the cultivation of these developmental components and teaching students about shared values, perspective-­ taking, empathy, compassion, their role in collective communities, and how their ideas can benefit others. As such, one might argue that transformational creativity requires engaging in self-transformation first.

Service-Learning Pedagogy Service-learning pedagogy involves curriculum integration and active participation in community service experiences (Terry & Bohnenberger, 2004). It offers a powerful method of instruction for student development. Grounded in constructivist and experiential learning principles, service learning embraces the notion that education is enhanced through student action and reflection. Service learning nurtures personal, social, and community development by creating opportunities for students to apply their knowledge and skills in addressing community needs (Terry & Bohnenberger, 2004). Service-learning pedagogy is its own thing and should be distinct from other practical experiences. Service learning, experiential learning, and internship programs are all forms of learning that involve practical experiences outside of

106

O. A. Desmet

traditional classroom settings. While they share some similarities, their primary focus and objectives differ. Service learning is an educational approach that integrates meaningful community service with academic instruction. It combines classroom learning with hands-on experiences aimed at addressing community needs or social issues. The core principles of service learning include reflection, reciprocity, and civic engagement. Students actively participate in service activities that are directly related to the course content and learning objectives. They reflect on their experiences, connect them to theoretical concepts, and develop a deeper understanding of both the subject matter and their roles as responsible citizens. Experiential learning is a broader pedagogy encompassing various learning activities, including service learning and activities such as simulations, hands-on experiments, project-­ based learning, field trips, and more. Within experiential learning, the focus is on creating meaningful experiences that enable students to apply theoretical knowledge, develop practical skills, and reflect on their learning process. Internship programs are structured work experiences that allow students to gain hands-on experience in a specific field or industry. Internships typically take place in professional settings, where students work alongside experienced professionals. The primary goal is to provide students with real-world exposure, practical skills, and industry knowledge relevant to their career interests. While internships may involve elements of experiential learning, they are primarily focused on professional development and career exploration. Service learning should also be distinguished from community volunteering. Although service learning may involve community volunteer opportunities, these volunteer opportunities are intentionally designed to integrate with academic content and meet specific learning objectives through guided reflection and other learning scaffolds. On the other hand, volunteering in the community typically focuses on providing assistance and support to organizations or causes without a direct academic component. The main goal of volunteering is to contribute to the community and make a positive impact. While volunteers may learn and grow through their experiences, the primary emphasis is on service rather than academic integration.

Four Key Components for Successful Service Learning Successful implementation of service-learning pedagogy requires careful planning and implementation strategies to achieve the intended objectives of social responsibility, empathy, and other desired outcomes while minimizing the risk of students learning the wrong things. It is a time-intensive pedagogy that requires careful planning, good community partners, effective student preparation, and guided reflection. These four factors can make or break the service-learning experience. Instructors should clearly define the intended learning objectives related to social responsibility, empathy, transformational creativity, and other desired outcomes. These objectives should align with the course or program’s overall learning goals.

8  Nurturing Changemakers: Harnessing the Power of Service-Learning Pedagogy…

107

Having well-defined objectives helps guide the selection of service activities, reflection exercises, and assessments that support the desired learning outcomes. Next, instructors should establish partnerships with community organizations that share similar values and goals. Working collaboratively with community partners ensures that the service activities chosen are meaningful, relevant, and address authentic community needs. Regular communication and ongoing feedback exchanges with community partners are crucial to maintaining a mutually beneficial relationship and ensuring the service aligns with the intended objectives. Ongoing support and guidance should also be extended to students during their service-­ learning journey. Regular check-ins help address any challenges, clarify expectations, and reinforce the intended learning objectives, ensuring that students are on track and learning the intended lessons. Before any service activities occur, students need adequate preparation to enhance their understanding of the community context, social issues, and the importance of social responsibility. This can include providing background readings, discussions, workshops, or training sessions. Preparing students for service helps them approach their experiences with a foundation of knowledge, empathy, and cultural sensitivity. This preparation can be integrated into the academic course content. Finally, reflections and critical thinking during and after the service-learning experience are essential to keeping students on track to achieve the intended learning outcomes and incorporate structured reflection activities throughout the service-­ learning experience. Reflection encourages students to think critically about their service experiences, connect them to academic concepts, and examine their own assumptions and biases. Facilitate discussions, journaling, group reflections, or guided reflection prompts to deepen their understanding of social responsibility, empathy, and related values. This ongoing access to students’ reflection also offers valuable formative feedback that will allow instructors to intervene and redesign the service-learning activity as needed to ensure students are meeting the intended learning outcomes. For a summative assessment, instructors can design assessments that align with the learning objectives, but also focus on measuring students’ understanding of social responsibility, empathy, transformational creativity, and related skills or attitudes. Assessments can include reflective essays, presentations, or projects that require students to demonstrate their learning and growth in these areas.

Time-Intensive, But Worth It? Instructors play a crucial role in the successful implementation of service-learning pedagogy. Their facilitating role is crucial in guiding and shaping students’ learning experiences. Instructors should provide clear instructions, set expectations, and create a safe and inclusive environment for open dialogue. They should actively listen to students, provide guidance, and challenge them to critically reflect on their experiences and values. Instructors as facilitators also play a role in addressing any misconceptions or biases that may arise during the service-learning process. As such,

108

O. A. Desmet

these types of learning activities are time-intensive and often require long-term commitments. They can have a great payoff for students’ personal and professional development when done well. The benefits of service learning extend beyond general student development, particularly in cultivating transformational creativity. According to Pereira and Costa (2019), service-learning pedagogy facilitates the integration of technical and scientific knowledge with personal, social, and community growth. Students engage in interdisciplinary work through this pedagogy and produce creative outcomes that contribute to cognitive, emotional, social, and transcendental knowledge (Pereira & Costa, 2019). Researchers have found that service-learning programs have many positive effects, demonstrating significant gains in attitudes toward self, school, civic engagement, social skills, and academic performance (Celio et al., 2011; Pereira & Costa, 2019).

Developmental Service-Learning Typology To guide service learning effectively, Terry and Bohnenberger (2004) presented the K–12 Developmental Service-Learning Typology, which suggests three stages of service learning: community service, community exploration, and community action. Community service involves volunteerism with a focus on giving back, while community exploration connects curriculum topics to community issues through project-based learning. Finally, community action represents the pinnacle of service learning, where students identify and address community problems through social activism and political advocacy. Although the successful implementation of all three types may promote transformational creativity, transformational creativity is most directly promoted through the latter, community action.

Service-Learning Pedagogy for Transformational Creativity Fostering transformational creativity entails stimulating the generation of unique and useful ideas and products that serve the common good (Sternberg & Chowkase, 2021). However, since creativity is a socially and culturally influenced concept, perceptions of what is positive and constructive may vary. To foster transformational creativity that transcends individual and short-term outcomes, educators must encourage a mindset focused on serving the common good, where students strive to balance the interests of all stakeholders. This approach should consider both shortand long-term consequences while upholding positive ethical values. By fostering deeper exploration, students can discover new ideas and constructive problem-­ solving strategies. Reflection on the intended and unintended uses and consequences of creative ideas and products, both in the present and in the future, is crucial in nurturing transformational creativity (Desmet & Roberts, 2022; Sternberg & Chowkase, 2021).

8  Nurturing Changemakers: Harnessing the Power of Service-Learning Pedagogy…

109

Furthermore, it is important to explore the utilization and consequences of creations from multiple perspectives, including those of the creators, users, and other individuals or groups directly or indirectly affected locally and globally. Therefore, in addition to fostering creative thinking skills, educators should cultivate perspective-­taking, empathy, and compassion. Thus, support for students’ self-­ transformation is an essential component of fostering transformational creativity. In this regard, service-learning pedagogy may effectively contribute to fostering transformational creativity since service learning has been shown to enhance perspective-­ taking, empathy, and compassion (Celio et al., 2011; Pereira & Costa, 2019). By combining opportunities for creative problem-solving, as well as reflection on creations that facilitate in-depth exploration of short- and long-term consequences from diverse perspectives, service-learning pedagogy offers a promising framework for nurturing positive and transformational creativity. In the following sections, specific examples are presented of how service learning can be used to foster transformational creativity indirectly through fostering self-transformation (community service and exploration) and directly (community action). Examples are organized around the three types of service learning presented in the K–12 Developmental Service-Learning Typology (Terry & Bohnenberger, 2004): community service, community exploration, and community action. For service learning to foster transformational creativity and its related skills and attitudes, the learning experiences should be designed in ways that those skills and attitudes are part of the learning objectives. As mentioned above, instructors should select community partners and design learning experiences and supporting tools to enable students to achieve those learning objectives. As such, instructors should select community partners that share values centered on striving for the common good. The examples below demonstrate successful scenarios based on my personal and professional experiences. They are simply illustrations of how instructors can design service-learning activities to promote transformational creativity and its related skills and attitudes. Effects of these types of experiences will vary based on the designed activity, the characteristics of the students, the community partner, and the instructor, as well as interactions among these factors.

 urturing Transformational Creativity Through N Community Service Community service learning revolves around volunteer opportunities that often prioritize personal growth (i.e., self-transformation) over direct classroom application. Community service learning cultivates student qualities such as compassion, perspective-­ taking, social responsibility, and empathy (Jirout & Klahr, 2012). Engaging in these activities also enhances students’ communication, critical thinking, and problem-solving skills (Fullerton et  al., 2015). Research further demonstrates that community service learning encourages openness to new people,

110

O. A. Desmet

experiences, and ideas (Jones & Abes, 2004). Consequently, community service-­ learning activities can play a pivotal role in fostering the attitudes and skills that underpin transformational creativity by fostering a level of self-transformation that enables students to orient themselves toward a common good. Establishing responsible community partnerships is important to ensure such positive outcomes. When designing service-learning projects, instructors should work with community organizations that align with ethical principles and select appropriate community partners to ensure students engage in an experience that promotes social justice and positive contribution to the community, even in challenging contexts. While community service-learning activities may not primarily focus on knowledge or skill acquisition, educators can strategically integrate them into an experiential learning cycle to facilitate a profound understanding of both classroom content and the attitudes and skills essential for transformational creativity. Instead of merely assigning volunteering tasks, educators can design community service-­ learning activities that provide students with concrete experiences to reflect upon. By connecting these experiences to course content and authentic settings, students are empowered to apply their knowledge in practical ways within the community service context. Through guided reflection, educators can promote self-­ transformation focused on necessary skills and attitudes that will enhance transformational creativity in the long term. Depending on course objectives, instructors can invite students to volunteer in a variety of settings that offer opportunities for relevant learning experiences. For example, students in human-services programs can volunteer at a local homeless shelter or nursing home, assisting in serving meals, organizing donation drives, or engaging in conversations with residents. This experience can cultivate compassion as students interact with individuals experiencing homelessness, gaining a deeper understanding of their challenges and needs. It also promotes perspective-taking as students listen to their stories, fostering empathy and broadening their worldview. Through their volunteer work, students learn about social responsibility and the importance of addressing homelessness in their community. As such, they engage in a self-transformational process centered around identifying a purposefully and personally meaningful life in service of others and a common good. Example 1 When I was 14 years old, my classmates and I participated in a volunteering experience that had a lasting impact on my life. As part of an integrated curriculum unit around World War II, I was asked to volunteer at a local nursing home for one week, where several Holocaust survivors lived. This curriculum unit was designed for students in the social sciences program and integrated language arts, social science, and history. We spent the week helping people around, playing games with them, taking care of them, and, most of all, listening to their stories. I spent my days engaging with the survivors, immersing myself in conversations that have stayed with me to this day. I listened intently to stories of loss, survival, and the

8  Nurturing Changemakers: Harnessing the Power of Service-Learning Pedagogy…

111

indomitable spirit of those who had emerged from the darkness of the Holocaust. In these moments, I learned the importance of compassionate listening, the power of empathy, and the significance of bearing witness to history. After this week, we engaged in reflective sessions as a class, processed our emotions, shared challenges, and observed a personal transformation in our thinking and perspective on the world. This experience nurtured a sense of social responsibility within me that I carry with me to this day. This community service-learning activity was designed in such a way that students gained a deeper understanding of World War II, practiced communication and language arts skills, and applied social science theories to the activities and programs they developed for these nursing home residents. Additionally, this activity cultivated compassion, perspective-taking, social responsibility, critical thinking, and empathy, which lay the foundation for transformational giftedness and creativity. By volunteering at the nursing home and engaging with the Holocaust survivors, I developed a deep sense of compassion through interacting with individuals who had experienced immense suffering and loss. Listening to the stories of the Holocaust survivors allowed me to step into their shoes and gain a broader perspective on their experiences. Understanding their perspectives and challenges fostered empathy and an appreciation for the diversity of human experiences. This experience made me aware of the needs of vulnerable populations, such as the elderly and survivors of traumatic events. This awareness motivated me to take action and contribute to the well-being of others, and as such instilled a sense of social responsibility within me. Reflective sessions and discussions with my classmates provided opportunities for critical thinking. Processing my emotions, analyzing the stories I heard, and considering the historical context of World War II helped me develop critical thinking skills and a deeper understanding of complex historical events. These qualities not only contribute to personal growth and character development but also lay the foundation for transformational giftedness and creativity, enabling one to approach challenges and engage in creative problem-solving from a compassionate and empathetic standpoint. Looking back on this learning activity, it could be enhanced to further emphasize transformational creativity by exploring short- and long-term consequences of creative ideas central to the World War from the perspective of various stakeholders. Students could engage in discussions about positive and negative creative ideas and their consequences in relation to the stories they heard from these Holocaust survivors to further and more explicitly engage in thinking processes central to transformational creativity. Example 2 I teach an introduction to educational psychology course to first- and second-year college students. The course is organized around a service-learning activity in which students volunteer at a Boys and Girls Club of America. This organization offers after-school programs to promote academic success and personal development, with a focus on at-risk youth. Beyond allowing students to observe, apply, and

112

O. A. Desmet

reflect on course concepts in a real-world context, this learning activity also gives students the opportunity to develop and strengthen several important skills, attitudes, and values, including empathy, compassion, social responsibility, perspective-­ taking, open-mindedness, problem-solving, and critical thinking. Working directly with at-risk youth exposes students to diverse backgrounds, experiences, and challenges. This firsthand interaction allows them to develop empathy as they come to understand and relate to the struggles and emotions of the children they work with. They learn to recognize and appreciate the perspectives and feelings of others, promoting a more empathetic and compassionate approach in their future roles as educators. Through their volunteer work, students witness the challenges and hardships that at-risk youth face. This experience encourages them to develop compassion—a genuine concern for the well-being of others—and a desire to make a positive difference in the lives of these children. They learn to approach their work with kindness, understanding, and support. Volunteering at the Boys and Girls Club (or other settings) exposes students to the importance of social responsibility. They learn about the needs of at-risk youth and the role that individuals and communities play in addressing those needs. This experience intends to foster a sense of duty and accountability, motivating students to actively contribute to the betterment of society and advocate for positive change. Interacting with children from diverse backgrounds and facing various challenges helps students develop perspective-taking skills. They learn to step into the shoes of the children they work with, considering their experiences, motivations, and circumstances. This ability to see the world from different viewpoints enhances their understanding and informs their approach to education. This exposure promotes open-mindedness as well, as they learn to suspend judgment, embrace diversity, and appreciate alternative ways of thinking and learning. Open-mindedness enables them to create inclusive and supportive learning environments for their future students. Working with at-risk youth often involves facing unique challenges related to behavior management, academic support, and personal development. Students learn to think critically and creatively to find effective solutions to these challenges. For example, students may not have access to a whole lot of resources to develop fun and engaging learning activities. They develop problem-solving skills and strategies, adapting their approaches to meet the specific needs of the children they serve and the limitations of their environment (limited access to internet, books, technology, etc.). Reflecting on their experiences and writing reflection papers allows students to engage in critical thinking. They analyze their observations, consider the impact of their actions, and evaluate the effectiveness of their approaches. This reflective process enhances their ability to think critically, make informed decisions, and continuously improve their teaching practices. So, although this learning activity does not necessarily require the application of transformational creativity directly, it is designed to promote underlying skills and attitudes to promote transformational creativity. As of today, ninety-one of my students have completed this services-learning activity and documented their experiences through a guided reflection paper. Of those ninety-one, 70% demonstrated significant growth in empathy, compassion, social responsibility, perspective-­taking, open-mindedness, problem-solving, and critical thinking. Roughly 13% of students

8  Nurturing Changemakers: Harnessing the Power of Service-Learning Pedagogy…

113

showed little to no growth, and the remaining 17% showed some growth in one or more areas. This data is based on a written reflection report and is thus influenced by students’ ability to express their growth in writing. These findings should be carefully interpreted and cannot be generalized or transferred to other experiences. However, it demonstrates that when executed successfully, this type of community service-learning experience may be effective for a significant number of students, although not all.

 urturing Transformational Creativity Through N Community Exploration Broadly speaking, community exploration, as a form of service learning, entails investigating a community matter that is connected to a particular subject taught in the classroom and utilizing acquired knowledge in practical ways within the community. The main goal is to develop a deeper knowledge and awareness of the community and its dynamics to gain a deeper understanding of the community’s social, cultural, economic, or environmental aspects. By engaging in community exploration, students are immersed in purposeful activities and real-life applications that exemplify the examination of the contextual impacts of our actions. Consequently, community exploration serves as a catalyst for cultivating the skills, attitudes, and values that form the foundation of transformational creativity. In community exploration service learning, students often collaborate with community members, organizations, or experts to investigate community issues, needs, or assets. They may conduct interviews, surveys, or observations to gather information and insights. The goal is to foster a sense of connection, empathy, and social responsibility while developing a broader understanding of the community’s social, cultural, economic, or environmental aspects. Through community exploration service learning, students not only learn about the community but also contribute to its improvement through their service and actions. Problem finding, also known as problem identification or problem formulation, is a key aspect of creativity (Runco & Nemiro, 1994). It involves the ability to recognize and define problems or challenges in a way that allows for innovative and creative solutions. As such, community exploration offers a great exercise in problem finding. Both problem finding and community exploration rely on perceiving opportunities and potential areas for improvement and involve being attentive to the gaps, inefficiencies, or unmet needs in a given situation or domain. Problem finding should be emphasized in the transformationally creative process because in order to create for a common good, individuals need to identify and define the right problems to solve. These skills can be cultivated through community exploration activities.

114

O. A. Desmet

Example 1 Cultural exchange programs can be a form of community exploration service learning. These programs provide opportunities for students to engage with individuals from different cultural backgrounds, fostering understanding, empathy, and hopefully appreciation for diverse perspectives. In the context of community exploration service learning, cultural exchange programs can offer valuable insights into the social and cultural dynamics of a community. Students have the chance to interact with local residents, participate in cultural activities, and learn firsthand about the community’s history, traditions, and challenges. For example, as part of my high school human sciences program, we had the opportunity to go to Romania or Gambia as part of an exchange program. These exchange programs involved a diverse set of experiences, such as going to school, visiting homes, participating in sports and excursions, and volunteering in orphanages and setting up activities for vulnerable groups in those communities. These trips were explicitly designed to gain global awareness, learn about life in sub-Saharan Africa and Eastern Europe, develop cultural competence, promote empathy and respect, enhance communication skills, encourage personal growth (e.g., independence, resilience, open-­ mindedness), and more. These programs also had a reciprocal component in which a group of Romanian and Gambian students visited our school. The explicit social and service component to these cultural exchanges involved structured meaningful engagement and reflection on the experience to help students develop a broader understanding about these communities. As such, these experiences target skills foundational to the transformational creative process. By engaging with people from diverse communities, students gain exposure to a wide range of perspectives, beliefs, and ways of life. This exposure can spark their curiosity and open their minds to different ways of thinking, which is essential for problem finding and fostering creativity. Cultural exchange programs challenge students’ assumptions and cultural biases by immersing them in unfamiliar cultural contexts. By experiencing and observing different customs, traditions, and social norms, students are prompted to question their own preconceptions and broaden their perspectives. This process of challenging assumptions is crucial for problem finding, as it allows students to identify underlying problems or misconceptions within their own cultural framework. Through cultural exchange programs, students develop cultural competence and empathy. They learn to navigate and communicate across cultural boundaries, developing an understanding and appreciation for different communities’ values, beliefs, and challenges. This cultural competence and empathy are essential for problem finding, as they enable students to identify and understand diverse communities’ unique needs and concerns. In our particular exchange program, we had to learn about the community we were visiting and develop culturally appropriate activities to help vulnerable populations. This preparation taught us to question personal biases, question what we identified as vulnerable and appropriate, and more. As such it was foundational in teaching us

8  Nurturing Changemakers: Harnessing the Power of Service-Learning Pedagogy…

115

perspective-taking skills. Students gain insights into the social, economic, and environmental issues that impact these communities by actively engaging with local residents, visiting homes, and volunteering in community activities. This exposure to cross-cultural challenges helps students identify problems or areas for improvement, setting the stage for problem finding and creative problem-solving. The reciprocal component of the cultural exchange program promotes collaboration. This collaborative approach encourages students to work together to identify and address shared challenges. Students can pool their diverse perspectives and ideas through collaboration, leading to more innovative problem finding and creative solutions. As such, this type of experience can provide a rich foundation for problem finding and transformational creativity, equipping students with the skills and mindset necessary to identify and address complex problems in diverse cultural contexts. Example 2 Another example of community service learning comes from a colleague of mine, Dr. Sarah Fitzgerald, who teaches public history. She has students working closely with local community members to collect, document, and catalog historical artifacts, stories, and memories. Students set up a History Harvest event inspired by the initiative started by the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. The History Harvest concept involves gathering and digitizing historical materials from the community to create a collaborative and accessible archive of local history. During the event, students engage with a diverse group of people in a community. After the History Harvest event, students can engage in reflective discussions, sharing their experiences and reflecting on the significance of the artifacts and stories they encountered. They can explore themes, connections, and lessons learned from the local history. Through this activity, students actively contribute to preserving their community’s history while fostering meaningful connections with community members. They develop research, communication, and archival skills while gaining a deeper understanding of the diverse perspectives and experiences that shape their local community. Transformational creativity can indirectly be promoted through building skills such as perspective-taking and compassion. For example, students can be encouraged to put themselves in the shoes of community members, considering their perspectives, experiences, and emotions. Teach them to look beyond their own worldview and to appreciate diverse viewpoints, as this will enrich their understanding of the community’s history. Students reflect on how historical events may have shaped different individuals’ lives and encourage students to reflect on the implications of these experiences. With some alterations, this activity can be adapted to be more of a community action and require the production of transformational creative ideas and products. Students may find creative ways to honor the community history, for example.

116

O. A. Desmet

 urturing Transformational Creativity Through N Community Action Community action service learning focuses on actively addressing community needs or issues through service and action. Community action service learning emerges as an ideal approach for nurturing transformational creativity. Community action entails making a positive impact on the local community, empowering students to identify community issues and create opportunities to address them. Consequently, these service-learning activities inspire students to employ their creativity in transformative ways that benefit the collective welfare. Engaging in community activism service-learning activities fosters a range of essential skills, including advanced problem-solving, critical thinking, leadership capabilities, adaptive intelligence, wise thinking, creativity, social skills, empathy, and moral sensitivity (Stewart et  al., 2013; Terry & Bohnenberger, 2004). All of these skills form the bedrock of positive and transformational creativity. Research indicates that community action service learning has the potential to not only promote students’ interest in social justice but also guide them in applying their creativity to advance the common good (Delisle & Galbraith, 2002; Stewart et al., 2013). Furthermore, studies demonstrate that community activism supports students’ emotional development while facilitating social change within communities, resulting in a mutually beneficial outcome for all involved parties (Stewart et al., 2013; Terry & Bohnenberger, 2004). Thus, community action serves as an effective pedagogical framework for cultivating positive and transformational creativity by requiring direct application of transformational creativity principles. Example 1 Terry (2008) documented an exemplary community action service-learning project involving gifted and talented students. In this project, the students embarked on creating a state-approved Solid Waste Management Plan for their county. What began as a recycling initiative evolved into a three-year endeavor, resulting in the students receiving the Presidential Environmental Youth Award. The students identified a community issue and collaborated with local partners to propose a solution. Throughout the project, they utilized research, collaboration, communication, and leadership skills, while also gaining knowledge about local politics and waste management. The project had a positive impact on the local community by effectively addressing an ongoing problem and offering an efficient, cost-saving solution. Furthermore, research indicated that participating in this type of learning activity positively influenced the students’ future engagement in civic matters (Terry, 2008). Thus, service learning actively involves students in transformative experiences and equips them with the essential knowledge, skills, and attitudes required for future endeavors aimed at creating positive change.

8  Nurturing Changemakers: Harnessing the Power of Service-Learning Pedagogy…

117

Example 2 As a high school social sciences teacher, I had my students engage in community action service-learning activities. The general structure of this type of learning activity would go as follows. First, students would have to identify a community-­ based problem (if needed the instructors can identify the problem or point students in a particular direction). One year, I worked with 11th graders. I instructed them that we were going to engage in a community service project. For one semester they were going to identify a problem within the social sciences field that affected their community and work toward a solution. Initially, they received no parameters beyond picking something that is affecting their community, of interest to them, and can at least partially be resolved in one semester. After some brainstorming and discussion, I encouraged students to conduct a community exploration activity. In this activity, students had to investigate their community to identify the problem. This could involve conducting interviews, surveys, observations, and other ways of collecting data to help them understand the community’s needs. My students chose to interview teachers and survey students to determine a problem affecting their school community. Excessive cell phone use during class was determined to be a crucial problem. Next, students had to research the issue and possible solutions. They gathered additional information, identified potential causes and approaches or strategies to address the problem. As students were developing creative and innovative solutions to the cell phone issue, I encouraged them to think critically, apply their knowledge and skills, and most of all consider the perspectives of parents, teachers, students, administrators, and other stakeholders. For example, initially most solutions involved confiscating phones even though most students would not like it. After encouraging them to consider multiple perspectives, students noted that teachers could make activities more engaging to avoid temptation or possibility of being on the phone. Students were encouraged to test and refine their solutions and gain feedback from the community stakeholders and experts. They quickly learned that they needed to approach the problem from multiple angles after trying to implement a schoolwide digital detox zone. That did not go over well with their peers. At the end of the semester, students presented their final proposed solution to the community (their peers, teachers, and administrators). They organized workshops to inform teachers and administrators about their solution and researched the effectiveness of their solution. For example, students organized workshops about how cell phones could be used in class and hands-on learning activities for teachers. Students also created workshops on the negative effects of being on your phone all day and the benefits of digital detox for their peers. Students then engaged in written and verbal reflections about their service-learning journey and the impact their project had. During these reflections they were encouraged to evaluate intended and unintended effects of their project, positive and negative experiences from the perspective of various stakeholders, and more. Through this community action service-learning activity, students engaged in creative and collaborative process to address community issues and such practice transformational creativity.

118

O. A. Desmet

Conclusion In conclusion, the goal of education extends beyond knowledge generation. To achieve this, transformational creativity needs to become a central part of gifted and talented education programs. Service learning emerges as a powerful tool in educating for transformational creativity, as it revolves around making transformative and meaningful contributions to society. It encompasses equipping students with the ability to contribute positively and productively to society. Adopting a service-­ learning pedagogy proves to be highly effective in fostering the skills, attitudes, and values associated with transformational creativity. By implementing various service-­learning activities, educators can imbue students with the necessary skills, attitudes, and values to cultivate transformational creativity throughout their lives. The concrete examples presented in this chapter aim to inspire fellow educators to embark on this transformative approach.

References Celio, C.  I., Durlak, J., & Dymnicki, A. (2011). A meta-analysis of the impact of service-­ learning on students. Journal of Experiential Education, 34(2), 164–181. https://doi. org/10.1177/105382591103400205 Delisle, J., & Galbraith, J. (2002). When gifted kids don’t have all the answers: How to meet their social and emotional needs. Free Spirit Publishing Inc. Desmet, O.  A., & Roberts, A.  M. (2022). Teaching for positive and transformational creativity through service learning. Education Sciences, 12(4), 234. https://doi.org/10.3390/ educsci12040234 Fullerton, A., Reitenauer, V. L., & Kerrigan, S. M. (2015). A grateful recollecting: A qualitative study of the long-term impact of service-learning on graduates. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 19(2), 65–92. James, K., & Taylor, A. (2010). Positive creativity and negative creativity (and unintended consequences). In D. Cropley, A. Cropley, J. Kaufman, & M. Runco (Eds.), The dark side of creativity (pp. 33–56). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511761225.003 Jirout, J., & Klahr, D. (2012). Children’s scientific curiosity: In search of an operational definition of an elusive concept. Developmental Review, 32(2), 125–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. dr.2012.04.002 Jones, S. R., & Abes, E. S. (2004). Enduring influences of service-learning on college students’ identity development. Journal of College Student Development, 45(2), 149–166. https://doi. org/10.1353/csd.2004.0023 Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Creativity in the schools: A rapidly developing area of positive psychology. In R. Gilman, E. S. Huebner, & M. Furlong, Handbook of positive psychology in schools (pp. 175–188). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203884089. Kaufman, J.  C., & Sternberg, R.  J. (Eds.). (2021). Creativity: An introduction. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.14361/zkmm-­2020-­0113 Pereira, O. P., & Costa, C. A. (2019). Service learning: Benefits of another learning pedagogy. Economic Research, 3(9), 17–33. Plucker, J.  A., Beghetto, R.  A., & Dow, G.  T. (2004). Why isn’t creativity more important to educational psychologists? Potentials, pitfalls, and future directions in creativity research. Educational Psychologist, 39(2), 83–96. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3902_1

8  Nurturing Changemakers: Harnessing the Power of Service-Learning Pedagogy…

119

Runco, M. A., & Nemiro, J. (1994). Problem finding, creativity, and giftedness. Roeper Review, 16(4), 235–241. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783199409553588 Starko, A. J. (2017). Creativity in the classroom: Schools of curious delight. Routledge. Sternberg, R. J., & Chowkase, A. (2021). When we teach for positive creativity, what exactly do we teach for? Education Sciences, 11(5), 237. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11050237 Stewart, T., Webster, N., & Haiyan, B. A. I. (2013). Understanding the impact of summer service-­ learning program on the social dominance orientation of gifted adolescents. Journal of Community Positive Practices, 4, 71–88. Terry, A. W. (2008). Student voices, global echoes: Service-learning and the gifted. Roeper Review, 30(1), 45–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190701836452 Terry, A. W., & Bohnenberger, J. E. (2004). Blueprint for incorporating service learning: A basic, developmental, K-12 service-learning typology. Journal of Experiential Education, 27(1), 15–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/105382590402700103

Chapter 9

Creatively and Critically Challenging Assumptions Gregory J. Feist

Assumptions are the starting point for our perception of and thinking about the world. They are most often implicit and taken for granted. Some people, however, have a talent for not only being aware of what they and other people take for granted, but also for bringing those assumptions into question. Creative thinking, by definition, is the formation of novel and useful solutions to problems that challenge assumptions. On rare occasion, some creative ideas change and challenge not only individual ideas, but even start news branches of art, science, business, and technology. That is, they transform society. Yet, this question is how and why do individuals, groups, and societies select the most useful and meaningful ideas from a large list of purely original ones? One answer to this question is that in addition to intuition and usefulness, critical thinking—using logic and evidence to evaluate ideas— is an important part of the selective process. In short, if creativity generates ideas, then critical thinking evaluates them. In this chapter I review the research on the nature of transformative, creative, and critical thinking and structure the chapter around six topics: • • • • • •

Transformational creativity Making and challenging assumptions Creativity Critical thinking Connection between creative and critical thinking, with a focus on education How to combat non-rational thinking and misinformation

G. J. Feist (*) Department of Psychology, San Jose State University, San Jose, CA, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2024 R. J. Sternberg, S. Karami (eds.), Transformational Creativity, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-51590-3_9

121

122

G. J. Feist

Transformational Creativity For the last 20 years or so, creativity researchers have made an important distinction between degrees or levels of creative thought and accomplishment. The now widely accepted distinction is a creativity continuum ranging from Big-C, pro-C, little-c to mini-c (Beghetto & Kaufman, 2007; Kaufman & Beghetto, 2009). Big-C is work that transforms a field and breaks new ground. Its influence is wide-spread and long-­ lasting, or what Simonton has called “eminent creative contributions” (Simonton, 2004). Pro-c is “professional” creativity and consists of creating works that have influence in one’s profession, but not much outside of it. It is important to point out that only some professionals in a field make pro-c contributions. Little-c creative work meets the two-fold criteria for creativity—novel and meaningful solutions— but its impact and influence are narrow in time and space. That is, it may be known locally and for a relatively short period of time, and hence its influence is regional rather than national or international. Finally, mini-c is creative only to the person in question, that is when a person’s work is novel and meaningful to them but not many others. In short, the creativity continuum involves creating works that range in impact and influence across time and space, from Big-C, whose impact is international and over long periods of time to mini-c, whose impact is only on a personal level. Transformational creativity clearly lands on Big-C creative achievement end of the creativity continuum—works that change a field and have wide-spread and lasting influence (Sternberg, 2021). Anderson and Feist (2017) developed a cladistic model of transformative science, but it could be applied to all domains of creative achievement. The core idea of the cladistic model, just like with families, genera, and species of animals, is that knowledge and fields of study can be arranged over time by their origins and new branches. A branch is a major new line of knowledge and every new branch creates a node. Nodes are the origins of new branches and therefore the transformation point of the tree of knowledge. They transform a field by starting a new line of research, art, literature, music, etc. For example, psychology branched off from philosophy in the late 1870s and soon thereafter split into two major branches of clinical and experimental psychology and then subdisciplines formed and branched off since then (see Fig. 9.1).

Making and Challenging Assumptions Creators who make transformative and Big-C contributions by definition change our thinking about some topic or idea. In short, they challenge our assumptions and make us think differently. Assumptions are the mostly implicit or unconscious starting points of our reasoning and decision-making process. Assumptions are ideas and beliefs we take for granted and often don’t even know we have them, until they are challenged or no longer work. The classic 9-dot problem shows the problem

9  Creatively and Critically Challenging Assumptions

123

Fig. 9.1  Cladistic model of transformative science. (From Anderson & Feist, 2017)

with assumptions. The task is to connect 9 dots with only 4 lines without lifting up one’s pencil. People often assume the 9 dots form a “box” outside of which one cannot go. Of course, it cannot be solved unless one realizes that assumption is just that—an assumption that may or may not be true—and one has to go outside of the self-imposed box. Indeed, the now ubiquitous phrase “think outside the box” comes from this classic problem. This brings us to the saying “Don’t make an “ass” of yourself and assume anything”! We all have heard that and know what is meant by it. As we just saw, assumptions can and do lead us astray. The human mind, however, by necessity operates by assumption. It is impossible not to, from experience or intuition, assume fundamental aspects of reality, sensation, perception, and thought. I have to, for instance, assume that the ground I am walking on will hold my weight and 99.9% of the time, that is true, assuming (!) I am not walking on thin ice. The problem is not in making assumptions, but rather in not seeing and challenging them when they get in the way of solving problems. The key to critical and creative thinking is being aware of one’s and other people’s assumptions and being willing and able to challenge them. An equally important saying, however, is “don’t believe everything you think” and “challenge your assumptions.” These attitudes are the hallmarks of scientific and critical thinking. But they also are the hallmarks of creative thinkers. Being open to experimenting and realizing that what one already believes and thinks may be improved upon and challenged is a disposition of creative and critical thinkers.

124

G. J. Feist

Creativity Going back to Kant’s theory of aesthetics, most creativity researchers historically have argued for a two-criterion definition of creativity: Ideas and solutions have to be both original/novel and meaningful/useful (Amabile et  al., 2018; Barron & Harrington, 1981; Feist, 2022; Runco & Jaeger, 2012; Sternberg & Lubart, 1999). Indeed, Kant (1790/1987) was the first to argue that originality is not enough: “Nonsense too can be original.” (p. 308/175). Speaking in gibberish may be original but it is not meaningful or useful. Simonton (2004, 2022), however, has added a third criterion to novelty and usefulness, namely surprisingness. To be surprising, an idea must be nonobvious, because were a solution merely a simple derivation based on previous expertise, it would be considered original but not surprising.

Critical Thinking The ability to detect BS has never been a universal quality of humans. As any con-­ artist will tell you, “A sucker is born every day.” Or as Marmion declared in The Psychology of Stupidity even more colorfully: “And so I proclaim, O idiots of every stripe and morons of all kinds—… Blowhards … pathetic ninnies and evil louts … oafs and space cadets … scatterbrains and dingbats … pains in the ass and motormouths—this is your moment of glory: this book speaks only to you. But you will not recognize yourselves.(Marmion, 2018, p. xv). Carl Sagan’s brilliant book The Demon-Haunted World argues powerfully for the development of scientific and critical thinking as a bulwark against such “stupidity,” superstition and pseudoscience. Shermer (1997), inspired by Sagan, analyzed how and why people believe so many “weird things” such as UFOs, creationism, alien abduction, and cults, and how training in critical thinking can obviate such beliefs. To be fair, all of us engage in motivated reasoning, or being relatively gullible when presented with ideas and information we like and already believe. At the same time, we are more critical and skeptical of ideas that contradict our prior beliefs (Caddick & Feist, 2021; Kunda, 1990). Because these biases in reasoning are so prevalent, teaching critical thinking has been a central concern of educators for a very long time. In particular, with the advent of the internet and social media, the ability to develop critical thinking skills has never been more important and needed. Elections have been won and lost and governments have been toppled because of what people believe on social media. But what is critical thinking? There are many different definitions and most of them have some overlapping ideas, but each also is somewhat unique. Halpern and Sternberg (2020) defined it as “cognitive skills or strategies that increase the probability of a desirable outcome…[and] skills that are thoughtful and effective for that particular context and task.” (p. 3). They go on to argue that it is more than simply possessing those skills, but also requires a willingness to use those skills. Although

9  Creatively and Critically Challenging Assumptions

125

perhaps obvious, it is interesting to contrast critical with uncritical thinking, which Chatfield (2018) defined as “automatically believing what you read or are told without pausing to ask whether it is accurate, true, or reasonable.” (p. 3). By contrasting uncritical thinking with critical thinking, we highlight a crucial quality of critical thinking, namely slowing down and asking whether it is true, how do we know, and what is the evidence.

Creative and Critical Thinking: Two Phases of Creation Now that I have discussed creative and critical thinking separately, the question arises: How are these two thinking styles related to one another? In short, creativity is about generating and selecting ideas and critical thinking is about evaluating them. Selecting and evaluating are clearly part of the same process, because creative people select ideas that are most appropriate or deemed most successful or meaningful. Creativity researchers are converging on the view that creative thinking involves a two-stage process: generating and evaluating/selecting ideas (Campbell, 1960, Finke et al., 1996, Kleinmintz et al., 2019; Simonton, 2022; Sowden et al., 2015). First, generating ideas involves thinking that is loose, automatic, broad, and divergent in scope. Second, evaluating and selecting ideas involves thinking that is narrow, focused, detail-oriented, and convergent in scope. Initially, remote and loose ideas get combined and those with fluent and unusual ideas are most likely to come up with original ones. Original ideas, by themselves are not creative. The more analytic, evaluative selection and evaluation of ideas is necessary to find those most meaningful and useful. In short, creative thinking involves a back and forth between “creator” and “editor.” The scientific process in general mirrors the creative process in its hypothesis (creator) and results (editor) phases. These dual-stage model of creative process are grounded both in neuroscience and in the dual-processing model of thinking and reasoning (automatic/fast vs. slow/deliberative thinking) (Evans, 2008; Kahneman, 2011; Stanovich et al., 2016). First, neuroscientific research has shown that creative individuals or people working on creative tasks have more interconnected semantic and neural networks compared to less creative people or people working on non-creative tasks (Beaty et al., 2018; Durante & Dunson, 2018; Gonen-Yaacovi et  al., 2013; Kenett et  al., 2018; Kleinmintz et al., 2019). More importantly, creative people have greater connectivity between executive control network (ECN), the salience network (SN), and default mode network (DMN) than less creative people (Beaty et al., 2015; Beaty et al., 2018; De Pisapia et al., 2016; Wu et al., 2015). In simple terms, the default mode network is active while we are letting our minds wonder and not focused on much, and the executive network guides and focuses our attention. The salience network modulates or controls the back and forth between these two networks. The DMN, therefore, may be most involved in the generation of new ideas, the ECN in

126

G. J. Feist

selecting and evaluating those ideas, and the SN in modulating the dynamic back and forth between those two processes. Second, going back to Freud, psychologists have known about two distinct forms of processing information: quick, automatic, and implicit versus slow, reflective, and explicit (Epstein et  al., 1996; Evans, 2008; Freud, 1900/1981, Feist, 1991, Kahneman, 2011; Kris, 1952, Stanovich et al., 2016). Recently, cognitive psychologists have referred to these two forms of thinking as System 1 and 2 (Evans, 2008; Kahneman, 2011; Stanovich et al., 2016). These two modes of processing information and thinking map very well on to the two phases of creative thinking, namely, creating new and original ideas (System 1, fast) and evaluating their meaningfulness or usefulness (System 2, slow) (Kleinmintz et al., 2019; Sowden et al., 2015).

Creative and Critical Thinking in Education Increasing critical reasoning skills in students has been a focus of educators for years. One could even say it has been one of the most consistent pedagogical themes in education over the last 50 years. Indeed, there is a vast empirical literature on critical thinking and education (Bleedorn, 1993), but I will instead review research that looks at the extent to which critical and creative thinking can be taught and what the relationship between them is. Just like creativity researchers, educators also see creative and critical thinking as necessary complements and part of an integrated two-step process between idea generation and idea selection/evaluation (Lau, 2011, Padget, 2013; Spuzic et  al., 2016; Wechsler et al., 2018). Paul for example, developed a theory of critical and creative thinking (Paul, 1993; Paul & Elder, 2006). Creativity requires bringing ideas into being that meet standards; “novelty alone will not do, for it is easy to produce worthless novelty” (Paul, p. 39). The goal in education is to create students who have skills in both creative and critical thinking; simultaneously being creator and evaluator of knowledge and ideas (Baker et al., 2001; Birgili, 2015). As Paul (1993) put it, a student should be “a creator who evaluates and … an evaluator who creates. Fitness of mind, intellectual excellence, is the result.” (p. 39). Similarly, Spuzic et al. (2016) argued that in engineering design, one must integrate both creative and critical thinking, with the former being imaginative, generative, serendipitous, and holistic and the latter being rational, selective, evaluative, analytical, and systematic. Most cogently, Combs et al. (2009) reviewed more than 200 books and articles on critical and creative thinking and developed an iterative reciprocal model between idea generation and reflective judgment mediated by self-regulation. Generating ideas (System 1) involve fluent, original, and flexible thinking, whereas judging ideas (System 2) involves analytic, synthetic, and evaluative thinking. Self-regulation is the process of monitoring and controlling one’s thoughts and ideas. In short, Combs and colleagues argue for the reciprocal and iterative connection between creating and evaluating ideas through a self-monitoring process.

9  Creatively and Critically Challenging Assumptions

127

It is one thing to argue for creative and critical thinking students, but another altogether to actually do it. Educators have examined whether and how creative and critical thinking can be increased in the classroom by various pedagogical techniques, such as metacognitive pedagogy, project-based learning, and dialogic teaching (Alghafri & Ismail, 2014; Chan, 2013; Vincent-Lancrin et al., 2019). Matthews (2011) increased creative thinking in students by training them in tasks and problems that had no one right answer and taught them to tolerate ambiguity. Students went from asking, “Is this right?” and “Are we doing this right?” to “Don’t tell me if it’s right.” In the words of creativity researchers, they went from convergent to divergent thinking. Johnson and Johnson (1993) found that by teaching students to engage in academic controversy and to present and defend both sides of an argument not only increased critical thinking skills but also creative thinking skills. Constructive controversy increases the number of ideas and ability to see multiple perspectives. Davies et  al. (2021) presented evidence that argument mapping in general, and computer aided argument mapping in particular greatly aid critical thinking skills in students because it requires them to build the pros and cons of an argument piece-meal (see also Gelder, 2015). It starts with a conclusion or claim at the top and then maps the supporting and opposing arguments or premises that are finally supported or opposed with reasons or evidence. The flow is clear: from claim to premise to evidence. Weston (2007) presented applied techniques for critical thinkers to learn to think creatively, such as his “exotic association” and “random word” techniques. These involve taking a concept or word and then truly randomly pairing it with another word. This frees one up to see things differently and to make different associations. Critically evaluating the usefulness and meaningfulness of the ideas is the second necessary step in the process. This research is consistent with and supports the two-stage model of creative thinking (Campbell, 1960; Combs et  al., 2009; Finke et  al., 1996; Kleinmintz et  al., 2019; Simonton, 2004, 2022; Sowden et al., 2015). Hidaytai and colleagues (2019) assigned students to Problem-Based Learning (PBL) and Digital Mind Maps (DMM) interventions. Creativity and critical thinking were positively related (beta = 0.52), but they provided no details of sample and no evidence of change from before and after was provided. It is unclear, therefore, whether these interventions increased creative and critical thinking. Indeed, there is some evidence that standard university education/training—no specific targeted training for creative and critical thinking—may undermine creative thinking and not foster an increase in critical thinking. Sola et al. (2017), for example, studied engineering students and reported that first-year students were more creative and just as critical as fourth-year students. We do not know for sure whether this was a developmental trend, because this study was a cohort analysis rather than longitudinal. Such a finding suggests, however, that it is not simply education by itself that facilitates critical and creative thinking, but rather that it requires a pedagogy that explicitly aims to teach these skills. In sum, the research on educational interventions on creative and critical thinking is somewhat mixed. There is, however, empirical support in education for a positive relationship between creative and critical thinking (Alghafri & Ismail, 2014). Ülger (2016) also

128

G. J. Feist

administered a CT and CR test to college students (n = 174) and found an r = 0.24 between the two. Glassner and Schwarz (2007) conducted research with 8th, 10th, and 12th grade students that generally showed the ability to evaluate whether information/ evidence supports a given claim (antilogos) requires both critical and creative thinking. Similarly, Grohman et al. (2006) conducted a study of the relationship between divergent thinking and evaluation in a two-stage model of generating and evaluation (GenEva) task with high school students in Poland. Accuracy of evaluation was determined by the mean difference between self- and expert-ratings of the evaluations. They found that students who were the most accurate in evaluating their own ideas were also the most creative (higher divergent thinking scores). Lastly, Avsec and Savec (2019) administered the Creative Engineering Design Assessment (CEDA) to 170 engineering teachers, engineering students, and chemistry students (Charyton et al., 2011). These designs were rated on creativity (originality, fluency, flexibility, and usefulness). They also administered the self-report Critical Thinking Tool Kit (CritTT; Stupple et al., 2017). Avsec and Savec found moderate positive effect sizes between the two measures. Being related does not mean one and the same, however. Wechsler et al. (2018) administered to almost 300 college students four measures of creativity (fluency, elaboration, originality, and flexibility) and five measures of critical thinking (deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning, practical reasoning, decision making, and problem solving). They tested two structural models. The first model was a one-­ factor model, with critical thinking and creative thinking being one latent variable. The second model was a two-factor model, with creative and critical thinking being two separate factors. Goodness of fit analyses showed the two-factor model to be superior to the one-factor model, especially when one measure of creativity (flexibility) was allowed to load on the critical thinking factor, and more measure of critical thinking (inductive reasoning) was allowed to load on the creative thinking factor. Although a two-factor model fit the data the best, the two factors were modestly related.

A Demon-Haunted World Revisited As mentioned earlier, in 1995 Carl Sagan wrote The Demon-Haunted World and gave it the subtitle “Science as a candle in the dark.” Since 1995 and especially in the last 10 years, that candle seems to be dimming and the world appears to be even more haunted with conspiracies, fake news, mis- and dis-information and superstitious thinking. The year that Sagan’s book was published was the year that the World Wide Web (aka the Internet) became what it is today, and little could Sagan foresee the revolutionary medium that it would become for spreading misinformation, fake news, and conspiracy beliefs. Social media by the early 2010s would take this trend up many notches. It would be easy, at this point, to give up and say that it is human nature and it is easier to believe in ideas that make us feel angry or feel good than it is to follow the best available evidence for our beliefs. In fact, people

9  Creatively and Critically Challenging Assumptions

129

do seem to like misinformation and anger-driven information more than information and facts. Vosoughi and colleagues (2018) analyzed the spread of more than 126,000 false and true stories on Twitter between 2006 and 2017. They found that false stories spread farther, faster, and deeper than true stories, and this was most true for false political stories. Moreover, false stories induce fear, disgust, and surprise, whereas true stories induce joy, sadness, anticipation, and trust. More optimistically, however, is Einstein’s wise insight: “All our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike—and yet it the most precious thing we have.” (Calaprise, 2005, p. 245). Indeed, critical, scientific, and creative thinking can and do shine a candle in the dark. Sternberg and Halpern (2020) summarize five strategies that schools and teachers could implement to increase critical thinking skills in students: • integrate critical thinking exercises in class such as providing information that runs counter to what students already believe; • create exercises and exams that reward critical thinking; • teach students the common obstacles to critical thinking (e.g., being gullible to information they already like or believe in); • use examples that matter to students; • do NOT avoid controversial or sensitive topics since these offer the most potential for critical thinking skills. These strategies are being implemented. In Finland, for example, by teaching critical reasoning and media literacy skills schools have been quite successful in teaching students how to spot and avoid misinformation online and in social media (Gross, 2023). A starting principle in Finnish schools is the teach students the difference between social media (not vetted) and news organizations (vetted); they also learn how algorithm choice manipulates what sites they see; and they even have students edit their own photos and videos to see how easy it is to manipulate them. It is not always school that educates young people on critical consumption of information. Ku et al. (2019) found that teenagers, who are getting their news almost exclusively from social media, become more critical consumers of real-life news when they are driven by a desire for reliable and varied information, understand personalized algorithms used by companies, and they pay attention to the source of the information. Adults and non-students can also be made to be more mindful of the kinds of information they share and therefore less likely to spread fake news and disinformation. Sternberg and Halpern (2020) also listed strategies that individuals can implement in their daily lives to combat misinformation and political polarization, such as making sure you interact with and talk to people from diverse backgrounds and political perspectives and breaking out of our “echo chambers” of information. Also, be open to the evidence and be willing to change your mind when the evidence suggests you should. Of course, that is easier said than done, but an ideal we should all aspire to. Roozenbeek et  al. (2022) developed video interventions (compared to control groups) that “inoculate” people against misinformation campaigns that involve

130

G. J. Feist

emotionally manipulative language, incoherence, false dichotomies, scapegoating, and ad hominem attacks. An example of emotionally manipulative language is “What this airline did for its passengers will make you tear up”. A false-dichotomy example is “We either need to improve our educational system or deal with crime on the streets.” (p. 10 of 11). Those in the treatment compared to control groups were better able to recognize, be confident in their ability to spot it, and distinguish trustworthy from untrustworthy content. These effects worked across the political spectrum. Pennycook et al. (2020) reported results from two studies that found that people share misinformation about COVID-19 not necessarily on purpose but rather because they do not give much thought to whether the information may be true or not. Asking people explicitly to first think about whether the information may be true or not, slowed their spreading of misinformation. Simple “nudging” people to think about accuracy can go a long way in fighting fake news. Finally, Gimpel et al. (2021) reported results from two studies that demonstrated the power of social norms in combating the spread of misinformation on social media. More specifically, they found that when people are exposed to “injunctive social norms” (i.e., which behaviors most people approve or disapprove of), they are more likely to report fake news to social media outlets than when they are exposed to “descriptive social norms” (i.e., what other people do in certain situations). Social media and online news platforms are also complicit in the spread of misinformation and can be part of the solution and not just the problem. The kind of algorithms used by social media sites can lessen the spread of fake news and disinformation. Pennycook and Rand (2019), for example, reported that people do in fact rate “mainstream news” outlets as more trustworthy than hyper-partisan and “fake news” outlets. This is for both liberals and conservatives, even if it is truer for liberals. The accuracy ratings of people in general correlated very strongly with ratings by professional fact checkers (r = 0.90). The findings of this study suggest that by “up-ranking” algorithms of trusted media sources that social media companies can also combat the spread of misinformation.

Summary Transformative knowledge lays bare our assumptions and challenges them with a new way of thinking. Transformative ideas are inherently Big-C—they change and create branches of knowledge. A cladistic model of transformative knowledge was put forth in which transformations occur at nodes on the cladogram, new branches of knowledge are born. To be transformative, both creative and critical thinking are required. Creative thinking is a two-stage process of generating, evaluating, and selecting the best ideas, which requires some form of critical thinking. The idea that creative and critical thinking are opposing forms of thought does not fit the evidence. As is true in many other domains, skill, and talent, we all can improve our creative and critical thinking with the right kinds of education and training. It begins

9  Creatively and Critically Challenging Assumptions

131

with understanding and challenging our own assumptions. After all, don’t believe everything you think! In short, we need to challenge our assumptions and not believe everything we think if we are to transform our “demon-haunted world” into a place where rationality and evidence trump irrationality and anger. Creative and critical thinking are the best starting points we have.

References Alghafri, A. S. R., & Ismail, H. N. B. (2014). The effects of integrating creative and critical thinking on schools students’ thinking. International Journal of Social Science and Humanity, 4(6), 518–525. Amabile, T.  M., Collins, M.  A., Conti, R., Phillips, E., Picariello, M., Ruscio, J., & Whitney, D. (2018). Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity. Routledge. Anderson, B. R., & Feist, G. J. (2017). Transformative science: A new index and the impact of non-­ funding, private funding, and public funding. Social Epistemology, 31(2), 130–151. Avsec, S., & Savec, V. F. (2019). Creativity and critical thinking in engineering design: The role of interdisciplinary augmentation. Global Journal of Engineering Education, 21(1), 30–36. Baker, M., Rudd, R., & Pomeroy, C. (2001). Relationships between critical and creative thinking. Journal of Southern Agricultural Education Research, 51(1), 173–188. Barron, F., & Harrington, D. M. (1981). Creativity, intelligence, and personality. Annual Review of Psychology, 32, 439–476. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.32.020181.002255 Beaty, R. E., Benedek, M., Barry Kaufman, S., & Silvia, P. J. (2015). Default and executive network coupling supports creative idea production. Scientific Reports, 5(1), 1–14. Beaty, R. E., Kenett, Y. N., Christensen, A. P., Rosenberg, M. D., Benedek, M., Chen, Q., et al. (2018). Robust prediction of individual creative ability from brain functional connectivity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(5), 1087–1092. Beghetto, R. A., & Kaufman, J. C. (2007). Toward a broader conception of creativity: A case for “mini-c” creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 1(2), 73–79. https://doi. org/10.1037/1931-­3896.1.2.73 Birgili, B. (2015). Creative and critical thinking skills in problem-based learning environments. Journal of Gifted Education and Creativity, 2(2), 71–80. Bleedorn, B.  D. (1993). Introduction: Toward an integration of creative and critical thinking. American Behavioral Scientist, 37(1), 10–20. Caddick, Z. A., & Feist, G. J. (2021). When beliefs and evidence collide: Psychological and ideological predictors of motivated reasoning about climate change. Thinking & Reasoning, 1–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2021.1994009 Calaprise, A. (2005). The new quotable Einstein. Princeton University Press. Campbell, D.  T. (1960). Blind variation and selective retentions in creative thought as in other knowledge processes. Psychological Review, 67(6), 380–400. Chan, Z. C. (2013). Exploring creativity and critical thinking in traditional and innovative problem-­ based learning groups. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 22(15–16), 2298–2307. Charyton, C., Jagacinski, R. J., Merrill, J. A., Clifton, W., & DeDios, S. (2011). Assessing creativity specific to engineering with the revised creative engineering design assessment. Journal of Engineering Education, 100(4), 778–799. Chatfield, T. (2018). Critical thinking. Sage. Combs, L. B., Cennamo, K. S., & Newbill, P. L. (2009). Developing critical and creative thinkers: Toward a conceptual model of creative and critical thinking processes. Educational Technology, 3–14.

132

G. J. Feist

Davies, M., Barnett, A., & van Gelder, T. (2021). Using computer-assisted argument mapping to teach reasoning to students. In J.  A. Blair (Ed.), Studies in Critical Thinking (2nd ed., pp. 115–152). Windsor Studies in Argumentation. De Pisapia, N., Bacci, F., Parrott, D., & Melcher, D. (2016). Brain networks for visual creativity: A functional connectivity study of planning a visual artwork. Scientific Reports, 6(1), 1–11. Durante, D., & Dunson, D. B. (2018). Bayesian inference and testing of group differences in brain networks. Bayesian Analysis, 13(1), 29–58. Epstein, S., Pacini, R., Denes-Raj, V., & Heier, H. (1996). Individual differences in intuitive–experiential and analytical–rational thinking styles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(2), 390–405. Evans, J.  S. B. (2008). Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 255–278. Feist, G. J. (1991). Synthetic and analytic thought: Similarities and differences among art and science students. Creativity Research Journal, 4(2), 145–155. Feist, G. J. (2022). The creative personality: Current understandings and debates. In J. Plucker (Ed.), Creativity and innovation: Theory, research and practice (2nd ed., pp. 45–65). Prufrock Press. Finke, R. A., Ward, T. B., & Smith, S. M. (1996). Creative cognition: Theory, research, and applications. MIT Press. (two stage generative/exploration GENPLOR model) Freud, S. (1900/1981). Die Traumdeutung [Interpretation of Dreams]. Fisher Verlag. Gelder, T. V. (2015). Using argument mapping to improve critical thinking skills. In The Palgrave handbook of critical thinking in higher education (pp. 183–192). Palgrave Macmillan. Gimpel, H., Heger, S., Olenberger, C., & Utz, L. (2021). The effectiveness of social norms in fighting fake news on social media. Journal of Management Information Systems, 38(1), 196–221. Glassner, A., & Schwarz, B. B. (2007). What stands and develops between creative and critical thinking? Argumentation? Thinking Skills and Creativity, 2(1), 10–18. Gonen-Yaacovi, G., De Souza, L. C., Levy, R., Urbanski, M., Josse, G., & Volle, E. (2013). Rostral and caudal prefrontal contribution to creativity: A meta-analysis of functional imaging data. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, 465. Grohman, M., Wodniecka, Z., & Kłusak, M. (2006). Divergent thinking and evaluation skills: Do they always go together? The Journal of Creative Behavior, 40(2), 125–145. Gross, J. (2023, January 10). How Finland is teaching a generation to spot misinformation. New York Times. Retrieved January 10, 2023, from https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/10/world/ europe/finland-­misinformation-­classes.html?searchResultPosition=1 Halpern, D. F., & Sternberg, R. J. (2020). An introduction to critical thinking: Maybe it will change your life. In R. J. Sternberg & D. F. Halpern (Eds.), Critical thinking in psychology (pp. 1–9). Cambridge University Press. Hidayati, N., Zubaidah, S., Suarsini, E., & Praherdhiono, H. (2019). Examining the relationship between creativity and critical thinking through integrated problem-based learning and digital mind maps. Universal Journal of Education Research, 7(9A), 171–179. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1993). Creative and critical thinking through academic controversy. American Behavioral Scientist, 37(1), 40–53. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Macmillan. Kant, I. (1790/1987). Critique of Judgment (W.S. Pluhar translator). Hackett Publishing Co. Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Beyond big and little: The four c model of creativity. Review of General Psychology, 13(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013688 Kenett, Y. N., Medaglia, J. D., Beaty, R. E., Chen, Q., Betzel, R. F., Thompson-Schill, S. L., & Qiu, J. (2018). Driving the brain towards creativity and intelligence: A network control theory analysis. Neuropsychologia, 118, 79–90. Kleinmintz, O. M., Ivancovsky, T., & Shamay-Tsoory, S. G. (2019). The two-fold model of creativity: The neural underpinnings of the generation and evaluation of creative ideas. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 27, 131–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2018.11.004 Kris, E. (1952). Psychoanalytic explorations in art. International University Press.

9  Creatively and Critically Challenging Assumptions

133

Ku, K. Y., Kong, Q., Song, Y., Deng, L., Kang, Y., & Hu, A. (2019). What predicts adolescents’ critical thinking about real-life news? The roles of social media news consumption and news media literacy. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 33, 100570. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2019.05.004 Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 480–498. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-­2909.108.3.480 Lau, J. Y. (2011). An introduction to critical thinking and creativity: Think more, think better. John Wiley & Sons. Marmion, J.-F. (Ed.). (2018). The psychology of stupidity. Penguin Books. Matthews, M.  L. (2011). Connecting creativity and critical thinking to the campaign planning process. Communication Teacher, 25(1), 61–67. Padget, S. (Ed.). (2013). Creativity and critical thinking. Routledge. Paul, R.  W. (1993). The logic of creative and critical thinking. American Behavioral Scientist, 37(1), 21–39. Paul, R.  W., & Elder, L. (2006). Critical thinking: The nature of critical and creative thought. Journal of Developmental Education, 30(2), 34. Pennycook, G., McPhetres, J., Zhang, Y., Lu, J. G., & Rand, D. G. (2020). Fighting COVID-19 misinformation on social media: Experimental evidence for a scalable accuracy-nudge intervention. Psychological Science, 31(7), 770–780. Pennycook, G., & Rand, D.  G. (2019). Fighting misinformation on social media using crowdsourced judgments of news source quality. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(7), 2521–2526. Roozenbeek, J., Van der Linden, S., Goldberg, B., Rathje, S., & Lewandowski, S. (2022). Psychological inoculation improves resilience against misinformation on social media. Science Advances, 8(34). https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abo625 Runco, M. A., & Jaeger, G. J. (2012). The standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 92–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2012.650092 Sagan, C. (1996). The demon-haunted world: Science as a candle in the dark. Random House. Shermer, M. (1997). Why people believe weird things: Pseudoscience, superstition, and other confusions of our time. Freeman & Co.. Simonton, D. K. (2004). Creativity in science: Chance, logic, genius, and zeitgeist. Cambridge University Press. Simonton, D. K. (2022). The blind-variation and selective-retention theory of creativity: Recent developments and current status of BVSR. Creativity Research Journal, 1–20. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/10400419.2022.2059919 Sola, E., Hoekstra, R., Fiore, S., & McCauley, P. (2017). An investigation of the state of creativity and critical thinking in engineering undergraduates. Creative Education, 8(09), 1495. Sowden, P.  T., Pringle, A., & Gabora, L. (2015). The shifting sands of creative thinking: Connections to dual-process theory. Thinking & Reasoning, 21(1), 40–60. Spuzic, S., Narayanan, R., Abhary, K., Adriansen, H.  K., Pignata, S., Uzunovic, F., & Guang, X. (2016). The synergy of creativity and critical thinking in engineering design: The role of interdisciplinary augmentation and the fine arts. Technology in Society, 45, 1–7. Stanovich, K. E., West, R. F., & Toplak, M. E. (2016). The rationality quotient: Toward a test of rational thinking. MIT Press. Sternberg, R.  J. (2021). Transformational creativity: The link between creativity, wisdom, and the solution of global problems. Philosophies, 6(3), 75. https://doi.org/10.3390/ philosophies60330075 Sternberg, R. J., & Halpern, D. F. (2020). How to think critically about politics…and anything else. In R.  J. Sternberg & D.  F. Halpern (Eds.), Critical thinking in psychology (2nd ed., pp. 354–376). Cambridge University Press. Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1999). The concept of creativity: Prospects and paradigms. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (3rd ed., pp. 3–15). Cambridge University Press.

134

G. J. Feist

Stupple, E. J., Maratos, F. A., Elander, J., Hunt, T. E., Cheung, K. Y., & Aubeeluck, A. V. (2017). Development of the Critical Thinking Toolkit (CriTT): A measure of student attitudes and beliefs about critical thinking. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 23, 91–100. Ülger, K. A. N. İ. (2016). The relationship between creative thinking and critical thinking skills of students. Hacettepe Universitesi Egitim Fakultesi Dergisi-Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 31, 695–710. Vincent-Lancrin, S., González-Sancho, C., Bouckaert, M., de Luca, F., Fernández-Barrerra, M., Jacotin, G., et al. (2019). Fostering students’ creativity and critical thinking: What it means in school. Educational research and innovation. OECD Publishing. Vosoughi, S., Roy, D., & Aral, S. (2018, March 9). The spread of true and false news online. Science, 359(6380), 1146–1151. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap9559 Wechsler, S. M., Saiz, C., Rivas, S. F., Vendramini, C. M. M., Almeida, L. S., Mundim, M. C., & Franco, A. (2018). Creative and critical thinking: Independent or overlapping components? Thinking Skills and Creativity, 27, 114–122. Weston, A. (2007). Creativity for critical thinkers. Oxford University Press. Wu, X., Yang, W., Tong, D., Sun, J., Chen, Q., Wei, D., et al. (2015). A meta-analysis of neuroimaging studies on divergent thinking using activation likelihood estimation. Human Brain Mapping, 36(7), 2703–2718.

Chapter 10

The Transformational Potential of Hidden Creativity Vlad P. Glăveanu, Adam E. Green, and James C. Kaufman

Robert Sternberg and his colleagues (2020, 2021a, 2021b; Sternberg & Chowkase, 2021; Sternberg & Karami, 2024) make a powerful case for the importance of transformational creativity—creativity that helps make the world a better place, both immediately and long-term. Most people are transactionally creative (i.e., for rewards/gain) or, perhaps, self-transformationally creative (i.e., using their creativity for self-­development; Kaufman, 2023). Perhaps the ultimate question is to figure out the best way to increase transformational creativity. One way, as Sternberg et al. (2021; Sternberg, 2021c) proposed for the broader construct of transformational giftedness, is to develop measures that assess potential for such transformative contributions. Another tactic would be to work with students who have already been traditionally identified with creative (or gifted) potential and help guide them toward more transformational aspirations (Choi & Kaufman, 2022). In this chapter, we will highlight another path, which is to avoid potentially losing transformational creators because they do not think of themselves as being creative in the first place. Specifically, we see three directions such work could take to help spotlight such “hidden” creativity. First, it is possible to tackle misperceptions or generalizations that people have about creativity as a construct. Second, many people also have poor insight into their own creativity. Third, many people cannot conceive that social change could itself be a domain in which to express their creative ideas. Finally, we will emphasize the idea that true transformational creativity V. P. Glăveanu Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland A. E. Green Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA J. C. Kaufman (*) University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2024 R. J. Sternberg, S. Karami (eds.), Transformational Creativity, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-51590-3_10

135

136

V. P. Glăveanu et al.

will come from the bottom up—from a groundswell of people applying their creativity, across a wide range of abilities, to helping the world be a better place. The opposite angle, top-down, or waiting for a creative genius to solve the world’s problems, is less likely to end in success—in part for the reasons outlined in the first chapter of this book.

Tackling Misperceptions and Myths There is a wide array of popular misconceptions about creativity that are commonly endorsed by laypersons. Unfortunately, such myths tend not to be of the kind that inspire people to try to be creative in the first place; it is unsurprising that the more that people believe in these falsehoods, the less likely they are to identify as being creative (Benedek et al., 2021). Many misperceptions limit which activities might “count” as being creative. Perhaps most notably, the “art bias” is the tendency to automatically consider artistic activities as creative, often at the expense of appreciating the creativity of other disciplines and domains (Glăveanu, 2011, 2014a). This myth that artists, in essence, have a monopoly on creativity (Runco, 2015) puts a lot of useful and genuinely creative human activities that are not art at a disadvantage, while not truly helping artists either. For example, the assumption that art is creative does not get enough scrutiny and, thus, represents a missed opportunity to understand such issues as what makes some art highly creative and why creators in all domains might feel the need to compare themselves with artists. It is also a misconception that places pressure on artists themselves to always feel compelled to perform creatively, contributing to the high rate of burnout in the creative industries (Thomson & Jaque, 2016). Most of all, the “art bias” can prevent creators who are not artists from developing a creative identity (see also Glăveanu & Tanggaard, 2014). This possibility is particularly problematic from the perspective of transformational creativity, given that the latter is often expressed in the social domain through more or less mundane acts of sociability and altruism that might not have an artistic dimension to them. While transformational creativity does not have to be artistic in order to be successful, being recognized as “creative” does rally forms of support—social and motivational—that are missed without such an acknowledgment. Beyond domains, other myths are broadly focused on which actions or processes are considered “creativity.” If the arts present us with a positive bias when it comes to creativity, habitual action tends to have the opposite effect. Habits are usually associated with regular routines and, as such, with repetitive and automatic actions— two attributes seen as antithetic to creativity. Conversely, habitual action is oftentimes surprisingly adaptable and open to small yet significant creative contributions (for the example of craft, see Ross & Glăveanu, 2023). In fact, habits are the basis of human action and, by extension, creative action in any domain. Even artists, who are considered by most to break away from repetition and routines, depend on these types of habits for their creative success. More broadly, we can define habitual

10  The Transformational Potential of Hidden Creativity

137

creativity as the creativity that helps well-rehearsed actions be masterful despite changing circumstances (see Glăveanu, 2012a). The “anti-habit bias,” then, prevents us from recognizing the fact that transformational creativity does not have to be revolutionary or directly lead to disruptive innovation. On the contrary, much of transformative creativity builds on existing traditions, such as pro-social habits and customs. Yet in the process of interacting with such traditions, transformative creativity renews them by making small but important changes to an otherwise expected set of habits. In this context, “habitual transformational creativity” can come to designate creative actions that lead to the greater good yet usually fly under the radar of both creators and their audiences for being mundane, repetitive, and generally predictable. These accusations ignore the fact that, oftentimes, transformational creativity continues rather than disrupts, builds up rather than tears down, and uses habitual action to transform existing conventions from the inside. Related to the above, another misconception that explains why a great deal of transformationally creative acts are overlooked has to do with the assumption that, to be (transformationally) creative, one must have invented or initiated the specific way of helping or mobilizing resources or people to generate positive change. This implicit view that people who had the original creative spark deserve all the praise, whereas those who follow in their footsteps are not “real” creators, is problematic on many accounts (for detailed discussions, see Kaufman & Glăveanu, 2022a, b). First, it glorifies the moment of insight without paying attention to what came before (its origins) and what comes after (its aftermath). Acts of transformational creativity do not begin and end with an original idea—it is the creative implementation of the idea and the way it leads to a series of other thoughts and actions that matter most (Praszkier, 2023). Indeed, the general tendency to overvalue the idea of inspiration led Bilton (2015) to propose the idea of “uncreativity,” which encompasses some Eastern conceptions of creativity, such as balance and harmony (e.g., Kharkhurin, 2014) and non-generative aspects of the creative process, such as convergence and evaluation (Guilford, 1950). Second, it is oftentimes difficult, especially with transformational creativity, to be able to even single out an original creator. Given that most processes of this kind play out in the social domain, there is a high degree of co-construction and collaborative participation at play. Moreover, given the kind of solidarity that can be built by acts of transformational creativity, it may be that even the originators do not want to claim credit for the initial spark but would rather pay tribute to the communities that made their sparks come to life and become truly transformational. Finally, the “spark bias,” to coin a phrase, reflects wider Western assumptions about creativity that prioritize individuals over groups, novelty over usefulness, and authorship over co-creation (Li, 1997; Niu & Kaufman, 2013). Many of these assumptions are a result of the legacy of Modernity (Escobar, 2023). Such assumptions might help some transformationally creative leaders to achieve their goals by motivating them to succeed against the odds and encouraging them to be original in their methods and approach. But these are also assumptions that discourage those who might not want to lead yet would be happy to participate in transformationally creative

138

V. P. Glăveanu et al.

activities. They would also risk losing those creators who are content to not have “the spark,” yet unhappy to be forgotten or made invisible because of it. Finally, other unfounded beliefs are about what types of people are creative. The idea that creativity is only reserved for geniuses has long been dismissed by scholars (e.g., Montuori & Purser, 1995). Models such as the Four Cs (Kaufman & Beghetto, 2009) divide creativity into different levels of eminence, from mini-c (personal creativity) to little-c (everyday creativity) to Pro-c (expert creativity) to Big-C (genius creativity), with the explicit intention of highlighting how creativity can be expressed across a wide continuum of efforts. A whimsical (if personally meaningful) idea qualifies as being creative just as much as a brilliant insight that eventually results in a scientific breakthrough or classic piece of theater. We are not arguing, of course, that mini-c is as creative as Big-C, of course, but that they both “count.” The Propulsion Model of Creative Contributions (Sternberg et al., 2002) proposes eight different types of creative works that range from replications to paradigm-­shifting reinitiations. Similarly, there is an obvious difference between someone’s sketch of the Mona Lisa and the actual Mona Lisa—but both would fall under the broad spectrum of being creative. People who self-identify as being Big-C are more likely to hold a fixed mindset view of creativity, or that creativity is largely stable and unlikely to improve (Karwowski, 2009). People with a fixed mindset were found to be less creative (Karwowski, 2014). The Mad Genius Bias is one of the more discussed biases (e.g., Schlesinger, 2009), with most overviews acknowledging some minor connection between mental illness and creativity at the Big-C level but without any causal link or extrapolation to everyday creativity (e.g., Kaufman, 2014). People who believe in the idea of the Mad Genius were found to be less creative and to have much lower (or, curiously, much higher) creative self-efficacy (Kaufman et al., 2006). Given that most people will not be taking an exam on creativity scholarship, why does it matter if they understand the truth behind these myths? It matters because believing in such myths may make people feel that creativity does not belong to people like them—people who may not be artists, prone to inspiration, good idea generators, or mad geniuses. Not identifying as being creative is associated with having lower creative self-efficacy (Karwowski, 2016). Unfortunately, most people do not necessarily gravitate to implicit beliefs that will help them with their creativity (Baas et al., 2015). The more people understand what creativity can include, the less likely it is that their creativity will remain hidden.

Increasing Insight and Understanding If dispelling myths about creativity may help people avoid harmful misconceptions that could consider themselves uncreative, then encouraging people to understand their own creative strengths and goals may help them maximize their abilities. Creative metacognition has several components (e.g., intuiting the best times to share your creativity; Kaufman & Beghetto, 2013), but it is primarily studied as how

10  The Transformational Potential of Hidden Creativity

139

accurately someone understands their own creativity. This ability has been studied in terms of how well people can evaluate their own creative performance (Kaufman et al., 2016), discern their most creative ideas (Silvia, 2008), and distinguish their creative abilities across different domains (Beghetto et al., 2011). In general, people who are higher in creative metacognition tend to be smarter (Karwowski et  al., 2020) and more creative (Benedek et al., 2016). Of course, it is easy to note that if people can increase their creative metacognition, then they are more likely to get the most out of their creative talents. It is much harder to outline specific steps needed to achieve this feat. Certainly, there are a variety of best practices to offer constructive feedback that should enhance creativity (e.g., Holinger & Kaufman, 2018) while, ideally, avoiding being so harsh that the creator loses their passion (e.g., Beghetto, 2014). Rather than detouring into the details of best educational practices for encouraging creativity, we will instead focus on the macro level of how people can understand their own creativity better. One way is to reach clarity as to their creative goals. Some people, for example, value and enjoy the creative process and are happy being creative regardless of the outcome. They may prefer to engage in mini-c or little-c pursuits for fun or growth. Others may certainly enjoy the process but also specifically want to produce a final product. It is worth the extra time, effort, and less obviously pleasurable parts of creativity (i.e., revising and responding to criticisms and feedback) to create a work that will specifically appeal to others and may become part of a domain or field. Their goals may be more aligned with Pro-c or even Big-C. We are not saying that there is an either-or situation here; many Pro-c creators may be primarily focused on the process, with the resulting product a happy additional result. But understanding the nature of one’s creative goals can help people make better decisions about how to create. Just as people can be aware of their preferences and goals, they can also identify their existing or potential affordances, their desired audiences, and possible constraints. Transformational creativity, like any other form of creating, does not take place in a vacuum. To engage in it, one has to be part of a wider ecosystem that goes beyond problem, creator, and creative idea or product and broadens to include audiences, affordances, and a series of new and old cultural artifacts. Given its clear social and ethical embedding, transformational creativity makes a strong case for why creative action is not to be found “inside the head” but instead distributed “into the world” (Glăveanu, 2013, 2014b). To properly understand its processes fostering insight and understanding, we need to consider the social and material context of transformational creativity. The former is relatively straightforward to grasp, given the fact that transformational creativity typically is fundamentally oriented toward others. And yet, who these “others” are is not always an easy question. Finding one’s audience and knowing how to communicate with them—both by listening to and addressing their needs and concerns—is an essential skill for all creators who hope to make a positive impact in society. What complexifies this picture even more is the fact that audiences are often multiple and diffuse. They can range from close collaborators to potentially critical competitors. They can include mentors, institutional partners, people in need, and people who must be unified. To efficiently

140

V. P. Glăveanu et al.

engage in transformational creation, the person or group in question needs to be persuasive and, in particular, win the battle for hearts and minds among members of a public that is not yet engaged but could be convinced to participate. This ability is likely to be cultivated over time and will depend on how well creators understand the affordances they use (or should use) in order to rally support. The notion of affordance has a long history in psychology (see Gibson, 1986; Jones, 2003), but it is a relatively recent concept in the psychology of creativity. This gap speaks to a wider neglect when it comes to the physical environment and its contribution to creative acts. We propose that transformationally creative leaders cannot afford to ignore affordances. Affordances are enablers of action and capture what is possible to do (and, by extension, think) in any given situation. Successful acts of creative transformation depend on perceiving and exploiting the right kinds of affordances (see Glăveanu, 2012b) as well as the ability to identify and categorize potential constraints (Tromp, 2023). Recognizing and valuing material and social resources and distinguishing between constraints that are merely hurdles versus those that are impenetrable are both ways to become aware of various possibilities for one’s actions. These are preconditions for creativity yet, at the same time, one of the more difficult tasks faced by those who engage in transformational creativity. This is because, oftentimes, what is possible is considered in narrow terms, as in what actions or outcomes are most likely to happen, or in overly pessimistic ways, as in what might go wrong. On the contrary, what transformational creativity requires is an exploration of not only possible but impossible (yet hoped for) futures (Damhof & Gulmans, 2023; Freeman, 2023) so that the creator can understand what unique affordances can lead to a more profound transformation. This understanding helps overcome functional fixedness, or the assumption that every object is meant to serve one specific function (Duncker, 1945). As such, creators can develop more flexible relationships with surrounding objects and places based on the view that everything can be used in a variety of ways. Then there is the issue of enacting affordances once they are perceived. This can be easier said than done when those actions are likely to come against social norms, conventions, or even laws. In those cases, to display transformational creativity means to change existing norms, to defy restrictive conventions, and to challenge unjust laws, when necessary. Not all creative actions are permitted but oftentimes the first people to build barriers to what is possible are the creators themselves. A wide, flexible, and ethical consideration of audiences and affordances can help one find surprising allies, identify unlikely opportunities, and mobilize others for long-lasting social and cultural change (Mulgan, 2023; O Brolchain, 2023). In addition to the external barriers that constrain creativity, internal barriers of affect—and especially anxiety—can also limit how far people are willing to go in exploring their creativity and fulfilling their creative potential. There is emerging evidence for the presence and impacts of creativity anxiety, a form of anxiety that is specific to creative thinking and is independent of a person’s level of other general anxiety traits (Daker et al., 2023; Daker et al., 2020; Ren et al., 2021). Creativity anxiety has been demonstrated across a wide range of domains, from writing and dance to math and science. Indeed, showing the cracks in the false equivalency of

10  The Transformational Potential of Hidden Creativity

141

art with creativity (the art bias, as we have discussed early), this work has identified the “paradox of the uncreative artist,” that is, the phenomenon of artists who may operate beautifully as technicians of their craft, but are in fact anxious and avoidant about generating original art (Daker et al., 2020). Notably, recent evidence suggests the real-world impacts of creativity anxiety on the paths that people choose to pursue (or not to pursue) in life. Specifically, people who experience creativity anxiety are more likely to avoid activities and career paths that they view as creative (Daker et al., 2023). This may present a disproportionate limitation on creative exploration and expression for women, because creativity anxiety appears to manifest more strongly in women than in men (Daker et al., 2020). Encouragingly, the availability of the Creativity Anxiety Scale (CAS; Daker et al., 2020) is a step toward identifying creativity anxiety so that it can be addressed, potentially by educators or organizations seeking to help their students, employees, and so on overcome creativity anxiety. Initial evidence using the CAS indicates that professional development that encourages creative agency and helps people identify their own creative resources (e.g., asking “How am I creative?”; Anderson et al., 2022) can effectively reduce creativity anxiety. Experiences that encourage artistic expression and appreciation (from music-making to simply engaging the senses in aesthetic appreciation of everyday objects) and experiences of evaluating others’ creative works have also shown encouraging effects for addressing the barrier of creativity anxiety (Shimizu et al., 2021). Finally, it is important to note that not all anxiety associated with creativity is completely without merit. If one aims for transformational creativity, as we have noted, there is often a certain amount of defying the crowd and conventional wisdom involved (Sternberg, 2018). Sometimes one finds allies and supporters among one’s affordances and audience… but not always. A life lived in pursuit of transformational creativity is not always an easy path. Intellectual (Beghetto, 2009) and social (Tyagi et al., 2017) risk-taking is needed to be creative, and what qualifies as a “sensible” risk may vary wildly among people. A creator who is willing to give up their reputation, livelihood, relationships, and even life in pursuit of affecting positive change may accomplish tremendous leaps toward progress, peace, and justice. Yet while we may admire such creators, we see a similar trajectory for transformative creativity as there exists for creativity itself. Some people will make small strides, but hesitate to have their loved ones suffer or ostracized. Just as we appreciate mini-c and do not disregard those ideas that do not reach Big-C, so too do we caution against condemning those transformational creators who are not transformative enough.

Engaging With Others and With Society Transformational creativity is represented by creative action in almost any domain (Kaufman et al., 2017), so long as the guiding aim is to strive toward the common good, either short or long term. In this sense, almost all creators—painters or

142

V. P. Glăveanu et al.

coders, designers or scientists, cooks or hairdressers, philosophers or poets, to name a few—can display transformational creativity in and through their work. The common denominator is the fact that they would have to show concern for social relations and aim to contribute to society in wise, just, and agentic ways. It is the social domain, broadly defined, that is at the heart of transformational creativity as a kind of creativity performed with, for, and toward others (see also Glăveanu, 2018). Although there is considerable focus and research on creative expression in, for example, the arts and sciences, society as a domain of creativity has received limited attention so far (with some exceptions; see the notion of the “domain of the future” in Csikszentmihályi, 1996). The focus on transformational creativity offers us a new opportunity to engage with processes taking place at a social level in a new way, while also adding an ethical concern (another dimension of social life) to traditional criteria for creativity, such as novelty and usefulness. What a closer analysis of processes of transformational creativity comes to show is that “generic” building blocks for creative action, as depicted by the Geneplore (Ward et al., 1995) and componential (Amabile, 1996) models of creativity, among others, are not sufficient to understand what makes creative acts “transformational.” In order to achieve its aims, transformational creative action needs to build on a wider range of processes, including socially oriented phenomena such as empathy, perspective-taking, compassion, and ethical thinking (see also Kaufman & Glăveanu, 2023). These are as common in everyday life as divergent and convergent thinking are (Jones & Estes, 2015), but not as well understood—especially in the way they relate to creative outcomes. To fully appreciate transformational creativity, both in science and in common sense, we need to move from a narrow focus on ideas or insight to one that expands to consider social interactions, cultural norms and values, and the ethical engagement with others and otherness. It also requires a series of cognitive processes that are less discussed in the literature on creativity. Key among them are anticipation and futures thinking (Cole & Kvavilashvili, 2021; Poli, 2023). These processes help individuals and communities imagine the future beyond the here and now, a future that ranges from probable and possible to impossible. They also help those who do imagine to be able to understand what preferable futures look like and what makes them desirable (Gall et al., 2022). This intersection is where transformational creativity meets futures thinking—they both place considerable emphasis on the consequences of action. Without the capacity to anticipate how things will turn out, we would have great difficulty in acting ethically. Ethics, ultimately, is a future-oriented category: it concerns current actions inasmuch as these actions carry consequences for the future. Anticipating good or bad outcomes is part and parcel of what makes action ethical and, ultimately, what makes creativity transformational. But transformational creativity is much more than anticipation. As suggested here, it occupies a space in-between the concern for others, the concern for the future, and the concern for creativity. What are the implications of resituating transformational creativity within society? We can think here about challenging myths and misconceptions, as we did at the start of this chapter. The historical ideas of lone genius or, more relevant nowadays, of solitary creative minds are problematic for a category such as

10  The Transformational Potential of Hidden Creativity

143

transformational creativity. What the latter calls for are distributed accounts that recognize the interconnection between creators and their audiences, between ideas and objects, between mind and culture. We can also think about what can improve a person’s capacity for this kind of creativity, which is again a theme of concern. What reflecting on transformational creativity as societal creativity (Glăveanu, 2015) adds to the above is a concern for how to shape social contexts that foster this form of creative engagement. Sociocultural theory offers some suggestions in this regard. First and foremost, it points us to the role of scaffolding in learning to be creative, including learning to be transformationally creative. This means that the social and material environment can be structured in such a way that they encourage people to not only think but also to act creatively in view of the greater good. A second suggestion, continuing from the first, is to offer role models of transformational creativity. It is not enough to tell students about how important or impactful this kind of creativity is. What makes the difference is showing them with the help of others, whether teachers, other experts, or their fellow students, who are more experienced in this area (what Vygotsky referred to as creating a Zone of Proximal Development; Vygotsky, 1978). Most of all, however, what matters is for teachers to recognize that their students, from the start, are capable of transformational creativity and, as such, are already active, agentic, and “creative” social and political participants. In other words, teachers must recognize the fact that transformational creativity is not something someone eventually acquires or learns, but rather that it is a central part of our existence as human beings from the start. All of us have experience being transformationally creative—whether this experience is ordinary or extraordinary—and becoming more creative, in a transformational sense, depends on starting from where we are, working with others, and growing together.

Looking Forward Transformational creativity can come with brilliant leaders, but also requires the quiet power of the multitudes. Many social movements, such as Black Lives Matter, are driven by strategic protests in many different locations, large performance art pieces, chants, and signs designed to attract media attention, and an array of other tactics (including morally ambiguous techniques, such as hacking and vandalism; Kapoor & Kaufman, 2022) that need the eclectic talents, efforts, and participation of thousands and thousands of people (Yoganathan, 2020). We have highlighted several different pathways toward this goal. One is to shatter the biases, myths, and misconceptions that may prevent people from identifying their own creative potential because they do not fit a preconceived idea of what a creator could be. Another is to build insight and understanding that can help people grow and develop as creators by fostering strengths, spotting resources and opportunities, and overcoming potential hindrances. Finally, there is also the recognition that the social domain is not only just as valid as the artistic or scientific domain but relies on certain types of creative thinking that may be particularly useful for transformative creative actions.

144

V. P. Glăveanu et al.

Not only would these pathways potentially give a voice to the “hidden” creators who might otherwise be silent, but we would argue that many of these creators would be more likely to be inclined toward transformative as opposed to transactional creativity. If people are not intimated by the genius bias or spark bias, for example, they are also likely to have confidence in their own abilities; this, in itself, is fine and even desirable, but there is a fine line between narcissism and self-esteem. Unfortunately, having inflated positive self-beliefs about one’s intellect and openness—as opposed to the more community-focused traits of agreeableness and conscientiousness—is more associated with narcissism (Bosson et al., 2008). We are in no way claiming that people with high creative self-efficacy are narcissists. However, we do posit that the people with lower creative self-efficacy who may thus be more vulnerable to some of the misconceptions we have noted may also be specifically less likely to want to use their creativity for selfish purposes. Transformative creativity can absolutely be driven by future Big-C creators; indeed, our history is filled with the stories of leaders such as Martin Luther King, Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi (and, perhaps in the future such young activists as Greta Thunberg and David Hogg). But history is also filled with large-scale movements for social change that have succeeded because of the efforts of hundreds and thousands of mini-c and little-c creators working together (Choi & Kaufman, 2022). Protests need the leaders who go into the history books, but they also need the clever protest signs, original strategies to distract the powers that be, and when absolutely necessary, the weapons made out of cheap and readily available materials. Nurturing a wide net of potential creators across a variety of C-levels, domains, and creative thinking strengths can help supply the creative breadth and scope needed for positive change to happen.

References Amabile, T.  M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to ‘the social psychology of creativity’. Westview Press. Anderson, R. C., Katz-Buonincontro, J., Bousselot, T., Mattson, D., Beard, N., Land, J., & Livie, M. (2022). How am I a creative teacher? Beliefs, values, and affect for integrating creativity in the classroom. Teaching and Teacher Education, 110, 103583. Baas, M., Koch, S., Nijstad, B. A., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2015). Conceiving creativity: The nature and consequences of laypeople’s beliefs about the realization of creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 9(3), 340–354. Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Correlates of intellectual risk taking in elementary school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(2), 210–223. Beghetto, R. A. (2014). Creative mortification: An initial exploration. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8, 266–276. Beghetto, R. A., Kaufman, J. C., & Baxter, J. (2011). Answering the unexpected questions: Student self-beliefs and teacher ratings of creativity in elementary math and science. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5, 342–349. Benedek, M., Karstendiek, M., Ceh, S.  M., Grabner, R.  H., Krammer, G., Lebuda, I., Silvia, P.  J., Cotter, K., Li, Y., Hu, W., Martskvishvili, K., & Kaufman, J.  C. (2021). Creativity

10  The Transformational Potential of Hidden Creativity

145

myths: Prevalence and correlates of misconceptions on creativity. Personality and Individual Differences, 182, 111068. Benedek, M., Nordtvedt, N., Jauk, E., Koschmieder, C., Pretsch, J., Krammer, G., & Neubauer, A. C. (2016). Assessment of creativity evaluation skills: A psychometric investigation in prospective teachers. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 21, 75–84. Bilton, C. (2015). Uncreativity: The shadow side of creativity. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 21(2), 153–167. Bosson, J. K., Lakey, C. E., Campbell, W. K., Zeigler-Hill, V., Jordan, C. H., & Kernis, M. H. (2008). Untangling the links between narcissism and self-esteem: A theoretical and empirical review. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(3), 1415–1439. Choi, D., & Kaufman, J. C. (2022). Respecting the invisible: Transactional and transformational approaches to giftedness. In R. J. Sternberg, D. Ambrose, & S. Karami (Eds.), Transformational giftedness: Identifying and developing gifted children who will make the world a better place (pp. 43–60). Palgrave Macmillan. Cole, S., & Kvavilashvili, L. (2021). Spontaneous and deliberate future thinking: A dual process account. Psychological Research, 85, 464–479. Csikszentmihályi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. HarperCollins Publishers. Daker, R. J., Cortes, R. A., Lyons, I. M., & Green, A. E. (2020). Creativity anxiety: Evidence for anxiety that is specific to creative thinking, from STEM to the arts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 149(1), 42. Daker, R. J., Slipenkyj, M. S., Green, A. E., & Lyons, I. M. (2023). Evidence for avoidance tendencies linked to anxiety about specific types of thinking. Scientific Reports, 13(1), 3294. Damhof, L., & Gulmans, J. (2023). Imagining the impossible: An act of radical hope. Possibility Studies & Society, 1(1–2), 51–55. Duncker, K. (1945). On problem-solving. Psychological Monographs, 58(5). Escobar, A. (2023). Welcome to possibility studies. Possibility Studies & Society, 1(1–2), 56–59. Freeman, M. (2023). The urgency of hope in a time of despair. Possibility Studies & Society, 1(1–2), 73–80. Gall, T., Vallet, F., & Yannou, B. (2022). How to visualise futures studies concepts: Revision of the futures cone. Futures, 143, 103024. Gibson, J. J. (1986). The ecological approach to visual perception. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Glăveanu, V. P. (2011). Is the lightbulb still on? Social representations of creativity in a western context. International Journal of Creativity and Problem Solving, 21(1), 53–72. Glăveanu, V. P. (2012a). Habitual creativity: Revising habit, reconceptualizing creativity. Review of General Psychology, 16(1), 78–92. Glăveanu, V. P. (2012b). What can be done with an egg? Creativity, material objects, and the theory of affordances. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 46(3), 192–208. Glăveanu, V. P. (2013). Rewriting the language of creativity: The Five A’s framework. Review of General Psychology, 17(1), 69–81. Glăveanu, V.  P. (2014a). Revisiting the “art bias” in lay conceptions of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 26, 11–20. Glăveanu, V. P. (2014b). Distributed creativity: Thinking outside the box of the creative individual. Springer. Glăveanu, V.  P. (2015). Developing society: Reflections on the notion of societal creativity. In A.-G. Tan & C. Perleth (Eds.), Creativity, Culture, and Development (pp. 183–200). Springer. Glăveanu, V.  P. (2018). Perspectival collective futures: Creativity and imagination in society. In C. de Saint-Laurent, S.  Obradović, & K.  Carriere (Eds.), Imagining collective futures: Perspectives from social, cultural and political psychology (pp. 83–105). Palgrave. Glăveanu, V. P., & Tanggaard, L. (2014). Creativity, identity, and representation: Towards a socio-­ cultural theory of creative identity. New Ideas in Psychology, 34, 12–21. Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5, 444–454.

146

V. P. Glăveanu et al.

Holinger, M., & Kaufman, J.  C. (2018). The relationship between creativity and feedback. In A. Lipnevich & J. Smith (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of instructional feedback (pp. 575–588). Cambridge University Press. Jones, K. S. (2003). What is an affordance? Ecological Psychology, 15(2), 107–114. Jones, L. L., & Estes, Z. (2015). Convergent and divergent thinking in verbal analogy. Thinking & Reasoning, 21(4), 473–500. Kapoor, H., & Kaufman, J. C. (2022). The evil within: The AMORAL model of dark creativity. Theory & Psychology, 32(3), 467–490. Karwowski, M. (2009). I’m creative, but am I Creative? Similarities and differences between self-­ evaluated small and Big C creativity in Poland. The International Journal of Creativity and Problem Solving, 19, 7–26. Karwowski, M. (2014). Creative mindsets: Measurement, correlates, consequences. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8(1), 62–70. Karwowski, M. (2016). The dynamics of creative self-concept: Changes and reciprocal relations between creative self-efficacy and creative personal identity. Creativity Research Journal, 28, 99–104. Karwowski, M., Czerwonka, M., & Kaufman, J. C. (2020). Does intelligence strengthen creative metacognition? Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 14, 353–360. Kaufman, J. C. (2014). Creativity and mental illness. Cambridge University Press. Kaufman, J. C. (2023). The creativity advantage. Cambridge University Press. Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Beyond big and little: The Four C Model of Creativity. Review of General Psychology, 13, 1–12. Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2013). In praise of Clark Kent: Creative metacognition and the importance of teaching kids when (not) to be creative. Roeper Review, 35, 155–165. Kaufman, J. C., Beghetto, R. A., & Watson, C. (2016). Creative metacognition and self-ratings of creative performance: A 4-C perspective. Learning and Individual Differences, 51, 394–399. Kaufman, J.  C., Bromley, M.  L., & Cole, J.  C. (2006). Insane, poetic, lovable: Creativity and endorsement of the “Mad Genius” stereotype. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 26, 149–161. Kaufman, J.  C., & Glăveanu, V.  P. (2022a). Positive creativity in a negative world. Education Sciences, 12, 193. Kaufman, J. C., & Glăveanu, V. P. (2022b). Making the CASE for shadow creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 16(1), 44–57. Kaufman, J. C., & Glăveanu, V. P. (2023). The creativity ethos: A palette of benevolent processes and outcomes. Possibility Studies & Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/27538699231178154 Kaufman, J. C., Glăveanu, V. P., & Baer, J. (Eds.). (2017). The Cambridge handbook of creativity across domains. Cambridge University Press. Kharkhurin, A.  V. (2014). Creativity.4in1: Four-criterion construct of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 26, 338–352. Li, J. (1997). Creativity in horizontal and vertical domains. Creativity Research Journal, 10, 107–132. Montuori, A., & Purser, R. E. (1995). Deconstructing the lone genius myth: Toward a contextual view of creativity. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 35(3), 69–112. Mulgan, G. (2023). Possibility space: The role of social sciences in understanding, mapping and shaping the future. Possibility Studies & Society, 1(1–2), 163–171. Niu, W., & Kaufman, J. C. (2013). Creativity of Chinese and American cultures: A synthetic analysis. Journal of Creative Behavior, 47, 77–87. O Brolchain, F. (2023). Environmental ethics and possibility studies. Possibility Studies & Society, 1(1–2), 172–177. Poli, R. (2023). Basic understandings of possibility. Possibility Studies & Society, 1(1–2), 194–197. Praszkier, R. (2023). Three-dimensional delineation of Changers-for-Good: From practice to conceptualization. Possibility Studies & Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/27538699231177149

10  The Transformational Potential of Hidden Creativity

147

Ren, Z., Daker, R. J., Shi, L., Sun, J., Beaty, R. E., Wu, X., et al. (2021). Connectome-based predictive modeling of creativity anxiety. NeuroImage, 225, 117469. Ross, W., & Glăveanu, V. (2023). The constraints of habit: craft, repetition, and creativity. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11097-­023-­09902-­5 Runco, M. A. (2015). Meta-creativity: Being creative about creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 27(3), 295–298. Schlesinger, J. (2009). Creative mythconceptions: A closer look at the evidence for the “mad genius” hypothesis. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 3(2), 62–72. Shimizu, D., Yomogida, I., Shijun, W., & Okada, T. (2021). Exploring the potential of art workshop: An attempt to foster people’s creativity in an online environment. Creativity. Theories– Research-Applications, 8(1), 89–107. Silvia, P. J. (2008). Discernment and creativity: How well can people identify their most creative ideas? Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 2, 139–146. Sternberg, R. J. (2018). A triangular theory of creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 12, 50–67. Sternberg, R. J. (2020). Transformational giftedness: Rethinking our paradigm for gifted education. Roeper Review, 42(4), 230–240. Sternberg, R. J. (2021a). Positive creativity. In A. Kostic & D. Chadee (Eds.), Current research in positive psychology (pp. 33–42). Palgrave Macmillan. Sternberg, R. J. (2021b). Transformational creativity: The link between creativity, wisdom, and the solution of global problems. Philosophies, 6(3), 75. Sternberg, R. J. (2021c). Transformational vs. transactional deployment of intelligence. Journal of Intelligence, 9(1), 15. Sternberg, R. J., & Chowkase, A. (2021). When we teach for positive creativity, what exactly do we teach for? Education Sciences, 11(5), 237. Sternberg, R. J., Chowkase, A., Desmet, O., Karami, S., Landy, J., & Lu, J. (2021). Beyond transformational giftedness. Education Sciences, 11(5), 192. Sternberg, R. J., & Karami, S. (2024). Why transformational creativity? In R. J. Sternberg & S. Karami (Eds.), Transformational creativity. Palgrave Macmillan. Sternberg, R. J., Kaufman, J. C., & Pretz, J. E. (2002). The creativity conundrum. Philadelphia: Psychology Press. Thomson, P., & Jaque, V.  S. (2016). Creativity and the performing artist: Behind the mask. Academic Press. Tromp, C. (2023). Integrated constraints in creativity: Foundations for a unifying model. Review of General Psychology, 27(1), 41–61. Tyagi, V., Hanoch, Y., Hall, S. D., Runco, M., & Denham, S. L. (2017). The risky side of creativity: Domain specific risk taking in creative individuals. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 145. Vygotsky, L.  S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (M.  Cole, V.  John-Steiner, S.  Scribner, & E.  Souberman, Eds. and Trans). Harvard University Press. Ward, T. B., Finke, R. A., & Smith, S. M. (1995). Creativity and the mind: Discovering the genius within. Plenum. Yoganathan, N. (2020, July 30). Black Lives Matter movement uses creative tactics to confront systemic racism. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/ black-­lives-­matter-­movement-­uses-­creative-­tactics-­to-­confront-­systemic-­racism-­143273

Chapter 11

Transformational Creativity in Education Zorana Ivcevic, Ross C. Anderson, and Jessica D. Hoffmann

Creativity has transformational potential. It can transform a failing startup into a successful enterprise and it can transform an area of scientific research where there are inconsistencies and doubts by applying new methods. Such creativity is disruptive and brings important changes in the respective domains, but does not constitute transformational creativity. Rather, transformational creativity is directed toward the attainment of a common good (Sternberg, 2021). Thus, in addition to the criteria of originality and appropriateness or effectiveness (Runco & Jaeger, 2012), the definition of transformational creativity requires adding the element of value toward the attainment of a shared good. In this chapter, we discuss how teaching for transformational creativity can be built in education. The chapter is organized in four sections. First, we define transformational creativity in education and apply the ecological systems model (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, 1994) to the question of how it can be built across different contexts. The next two sections present specific examples of programs aimed at building transformational creativity in teacher education and in secondary school students. We describe the nature of these programs, the rationale of their design, the ecological contexts in which they operate, and the effects they may have not just on those who are directly enrolled in them, but also on others (e.g., school communities). The final section discusses future directions in research on transformational creativity in educational contexts. We ask what are the key questions to be addressed if our goal is to establish programs that build transformational creativity and how we should test their effects.

Z. Ivcevic (*) · J. D. Hoffmann Yale Center for Emotional Intelligence, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA e-mail: [email protected] R. C. Anderson Oregon Research Institute, Springfield, OR, USA © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2024 R. J. Sternberg, S. Karami (eds.), Transformational Creativity, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-51590-3_11

149

150

Z. Ivcevic et al.

How to Build Transformational Creativity in Education What sets transformational creativity apart is that creativity is directed toward making the world—human, non-human living, and even inanimate—a better place (Sternberg, 2021). It is possible to distinguish different kinds of transformational creativity, based on who or what is being bettered, distinguishing self, other, and fully transformational creativity (Sternberg, 2021), as well as level of transformation, in which case we can discuss the 4c’s of transformational creativity. Self-­ transformational creativity is directed toward building psychological well-being in one’s own life; other-transformational creativity benefits others, but not the self; and, finally, fully transformational creativity benefits both the self and others. These distinctions are not always obvious or unambiguous. For instance, it might seem that creativity of Sylvia Plath benefited others who have read her writing and found meaning in it, but not herself, as she ended her life by suicide. But her letters suggest that her writing was personally transformational too, describing it as a source of self-esteem and a means of authentic expression (Plath, 1975). Mental illness leading to suicide does not necessarily preclude self-transformational creativity at some points during a person’s life. Transformational creativity can also be examined in relation to the level of creativity, from mini-c to Big-C (Kaufman & Beghetto, 2009). Mini-c transformational creativity could include small acts of creativity explicitly aimed at making connections that enrich one’s own life or creating insights that could be used toward benefiting others. This could be the case when a student comes up with examples from their personal experience when studying for a psychology exam in college and it helps them better understand themselves. Little-c transformational creativity can include everyday creativity and interactions that contribute to personal or social well-being. Indeed, the positive relationship between creativity and psychological well-being is largely on the level of little-c (Kaufman, 2018). Little-c transformational creativity in education can include creative classroom practices that move students’ thinking from searching primarily for single answers to allowing multiple ideas and considering multiple perspectives. Pro-c transformational creativity could be found in the work of artists who create awe, wonder, or delight in their audiences or in the work of scientists who create new vaccines. Pro-c transformational creativity educators create a climate of psychological safety in which unconventional ideas are welcome. Finally, Big-C transformational creativity is positive and enduring in its influence, such as contributions of Maria Montessori to imagining a new approach to child-centered education. We argue that building transformational creativity into education should be considered from an ecological systems perspective, which posits that development and its outcomes stem from the interaction between individuals and the multiple contexts around them (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, 1994). Understanding these contexts and their effects on individuals can help us create models of how transformational creativity develops, as well as provide a basis for targeting interventions and educational programs aiming to build transformational creativity. Furthermore, research

11  Transformational Creativity in Education

151

needs to account for the agency of individuals in influencing their development and learning (Lerner, 2002). Bronfenbrenner (1979, 1994) described human development as occurring in a set of nested contexts. Microsystems are immediate settings in which people reside, such as family, school, or work. These are the contexts studied in much educational research and the level of context at which most interventions aimed at building creativity take place. Within the microsystem, it is possible to examine interactions of individuals with different others and different aspects of their immediate environment. Children, for example, interact with parents, teachers, and peers on a regular basis and they can get different messages in these interactions. Although research so far has not examined interactions that are associated with transformational creativity, we know that how parents interact with their preschool aged children as they teach them a battery of divergent and convergent thinking tasks predicts children’s creative thinking in early adolescence (Harrington et al., 1987). Parents whose children were more creative in adolescence tended to encourage their children, praised them while working on the tasks, and supported them to proceed independently. Recent research deepened our understanding of climate for creativity in parent-­ child relationships and identified four major factors that describe such climate: encouraging the pursuit of new experiences, supporting nonconformity and independence, building perseverance in the course of creative tasks, and encouraging fantasy (Kwaśniewska et al., 2018; Kwaśniewska & Lebuda, 2017). In addition to these creativity-fostering interactions, we can hypothesize that parents (and, similarly, teachers) who discuss, encourage, and model prosocial motivation and action might be more likely to build transformational creativity in their children. The mesosystem is defined by interactions between different microsystems, such as interactions between experiences in families and at school. Creativity at work is predicted by both work-based support and non-work (family-based) support (Madjar et al., 2002). Marital satisfaction predicts work creativity through resource spillover (e.g., feeling ready for work and confident, Tang et al., 2017). Studies of educational interventions suggest that their long-term success can depend on the interaction between microsystems. For example, a program that aimed to build creative thinking skills in primary school children at an art center found an increase in problem-­ finding and idea-generation skills at the end of the program, but not two months later when children were tested in their schools (Hoffmann et al., 2021). Although not explicitly studied, the authors discussed results as potentially indicating a discrepancy between values and goals encouraged at the art center and at school. In the context of transformational creativity, it will be important to examine the correspondence between climate for creativity and values and related goals for creativity across the two environments. The exosystem includes links and interactions between contexts, with at least one of the settings where the individual does not have an active role, such as the context of parental work and the child’s family environment or the interactions between national-level educational policies and specific school contexts. One example is how accountability mandates get implemented in schools and what influence they have on instruction and classroom interactions. In the United States,

152

Z. Ivcevic et al.

introduction of testing mandates has been related to “teaching to the test” practices—aligning the curriculum to the tests and changing how the classroom time is spent (Dee & Jacob, 2010; Menken, 2006). With the introduction of testing mandates in literacy and math, preschool programs such as Head Start increased the amount of academic literacy activities (Walter & Lippard, 2017) and kindergarten teachers spent more time on literacy and math and less time on art, music, or child-­ selected activities (Bassok et al., 2016). Although we are not aware of studies that directly examine how these changes affected teachers’ and students’ beliefs about the role of creativity at school, it is conceivable that the gap between perceived academic and creative goals and activities previously shown in research (Hoffmann et al., 2016) could have been widened. In the context of transformational creativity, the interaction between national mandates and school policies would have to jointly consider acquisition of basic skills (e.g., literacy, numeracy), thinking skills (both divergent and convergent), and values of contributing to the community and the world. The macrosystem refers to the culture in which people live, usually defined by national borders and laws. Bronfenbrenner (1979, 1994) considered the macrosystem as the cultural blueprint that outlines opportunities and constraints of other more immediate environments. Social psychologists have examined differences in values and cultural beliefs across the globe, including those relevant to creativity (e.g., should children be encouraged in their imagination?; Haerpfer et al., 2020). A broad dimension of cultural values describing individualism—putting emphasis on autonomy and independence—has also been related to national-level creativity (Rinne et al., 2013). Existing research does not allow us to make specific predictions about macrosystem influences on transformational creativity. A promising line of inquiry distinguishes performance and humane orientation cultures; whereas the former is concerned with prioritizing rewards, competition, and reaching standards of excellence, the latter tends to be focused on social values and quality of life issues (Ollier-Malaterre et al., 2013). It could be hypothesized that cultures with humane orientations would be more likely to support development of transformational creativity. Furthermore, countries adopt policies that define the nature of education (e.g., age of entry into formal schooling, length of school day and year, duration of compulsory education, subjects taught). In addition to national assessments, an influential worldwide set of assessments is administered by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) aims to evaluate national educational systems by measuring performance of 15-year old students on reading, math, and science. These assessments and associated country-level rankings have influenced national educational systems and prompted reforms (Pons, 2017), largely through competition (Parcerisa et  al., 2020). Starting in 2022, PISA started administering measures of creative thinking, with potential effects on educational policies to come. Whether those effects end up being limited to general creativity, or also transformational creativity when paired with other programs, such as, for instance, those in social and emotional learning, remains an open question for future research.

11  Transformational Creativity in Education

153

Finally, the chronosystem refers to the time dimension in development. This system can include normative changes in an individual life course (e.g., start of primary, secondary, and post-secondary schooling, entrance in the workplace), the timing of which is country-specific (e.g., compulsory education starts at age 4 in the United Kingdom and at age 7 in Finland). In the context of creativity, it remains unknown whether an intervention can have more long-term effects when it is administered at different ages. For example, we can ask whether interventions aimed at teaching creativity skills and mindsets are more effective when implemented in primary school years before the common slump in creative thinking that happens around 7th grade (Said-Metwaly et al., 2021), at the time of the slump, or after the slump. Similar questions can be asked about the learning of values that motivate transformational creativity. Another aspect of the chronosystem refers to the impact of social changes, such as the introduction of new educational policies, the timing of socio-political events (e.g., at what point in an individual’s life a person experiences an economic recession or a war), or secular changes in societal values (e.g., such as those measured by the World Values Survey, which is an international research project measuring beliefs and attitudes and their changes over time). The ecological systems perspective based on Bronfenbrenner’s (1979, 1994) seminal work has been successfully applied to a broad range of topics, such as bullying and peer victimization (Hong & Espelage, 2012), Native American educational experiences (Fish & Syed, 2018), mentoring at work (Chandler et al., 2011), and practical implications for juvenile justice youth (Snyder & Duchschere, 2022). In the following sections, we discuss its relevance to building transformational creativity in the context of schools through interventions focused on teachers or students.

 uilding Transformational Creativity in Secondary B School Students School Climate and the Need for New Ideas The microsystem of the school community is one of the places where youth spend the most time. The interactions they have with peers and educators can have great influence on their healthy development and well-being (Aldridge & McChesney, 2018). The quality of these interactions is often placed within the construct of school climate—the relationships between educators and students; the sense of physical and psychological safety that is fostered and maintained; the celebration of diversity; and the quality of the social, emotional, and academic instruction (Hoffmann & De France, 2022). More positive school climates are associated with less bullying (Wang et al., 2013), greater student engagement (Konold et al., 2018), and overall academic achievement (Bear et  al., 2011; Thapa et  al., 2013; Zullig et al., 2010).

154

Z. Ivcevic et al.

Study upon study finds that there are disparities in how students in different social groups experience school. Black and Hispanic students in California report a lower sense of safety, connection, relationships with adults, and opportunity to participate than their White peers (Voight et  al., 2015). Students who identify as LGBTQ report more negative perceptions of their school climate as well (Day et al., 2018; Wernick et al., 2017). Moreover, there is reason to suspect that such gaps have only increased since COVID-19, given inequities that occurred with school closures (Parolin & Lee, 2021), and access to technology and school resources (Haderlein et al., 2021). The need for new and effective (i.e., creative) ideas is critical. While Herculean efforts by educators and educational leaders to ensure school works for everyone have been documented, we propose here the added value that comes from including students in the devising and implementing of new promising practices that benefit the whole school community.

Secondary School Students Bring Change Primary school students rely on their classroom teacher to set a warm, caring tone and to ensure each child’s safety. For secondary school students, both developmentally and as the ratios of students to staff increases, the responsibility to make the school the kind of place they want it to be can be shared across the youth and their educators. In other words, the students are active participants in their own educational experience and should be viewed as potential change agents, who hold unique knowledge—drawn directly from their experiences as students—into how their school’s climate could be improved. Involving students in this process provides an opportunity for development of their transformational creativity. One approach for turning this student potential for transformational creativity into a reality is the inspirED program. inspirED is a free set of resources for secondary school students and educators who support them in forming teams, identifying issues within their school that they would like to address, and then completing projects or campaigns directed toward their goals. inspirED follows a four-step process built on theories of creative problem-solving, youth development, and prosocial behavior. The steps are A: Assess your school climate (problem-finding); B: Brainstorm possible project or campaign ideas to improve school climate (idea generation); C: Commit to and complete your chosen project (idea execution); D: Debrief your impact and personal growth (Hoffmann et  al., 2022; Ivcevic et al., 2022). At each step, inspirED teams are provided with helpful tools and strategies that allow them to achieve their creative potential directed toward the common good. For example, teams are specifically instructed to spend time on problem-finding, based on research that those who spend more time fully understanding and constructing problems will have more success at generating creative solutions (Reiter-Palmon, 2017). Similarly, in the brainstorming phase, team members are given exercises in which they begin to work independently before sharing ideas with the group (Brown

11  Transformational Creativity in Education

155

& Paulus, 2002). Then, they are given a series of prompts to help further generate ideas beginning with, “What if we ….” Idea execution relies on selecting an idea that is feasible in a certain time and with the resources and team skills available; thus, step C helps students to consider each of these elements and complete an action plan that can be implemented. Finally, teams are supported in debriefing what went well and what could have gone better to gain further insight into the creative problem-solving process for future cycles. They are supported through several reflection activities to consider their personal contributions and growth and to solidify a sense of creative self-efficacy that can extend beyond inspirED. What makes inspirED different from other youth-led participatory research is a grounding and emphasis throughout the process on social and emotional skills. Translating the work of Ivcevic et al. (2017; Ivcevic & Hoffmann, 2019) and others, the role of emotional self-awareness and management are intertwined with each step of inspirED, enabling actualization of transformational creativity. Unpleasant emotions, including disappointment, frustration, or anger, are tapped into during the Assess phase to help students identify ways in which their school might be improved. Pleasant, activating emotions such as optimism and excitement are then harnessed for brainstorming. Throughout this process, inspirED also focuses on fostering psychological safety within a group, including exercises to build team cohesion (e.g., choosing a team name, completing a “What’s Our Why?” activity). The Commit and Complete phase focuses on helping students to maintain motivation and persist through challenges or setbacks. This can also be when passion for particular causes comes into play, as students are able to advocate for their cause. Finally, as students debrief the impact of their project, they are able to experience pride and accomplishment at both the self- and the other-transformational work they have done, while also circling back to the work that is not yet finished and begin a new cycle of identifying the next challenge they want to tackle and how it can affect their community. The inspirED process works primarily at the microsystem (school) level. Students are provided with the training, skills, and resources to enact transformational creativity that benefits themselves and their peers, by making their school a better place. With over 750 inspirED teams across the United States, students have completed a range of projects, from enhancing green spaces in and around their building, to connection activities to help students feel welcome and make friends, peer-mentorship to support student well-being, and school spirit days. Seibyl et al. (2020) found that most projects focused on peer connectedness. Similarly, Hoffmann et al. (2022) found that most projects focused on improving relationships among students, social safety, and emotional safety. For example, a high school team in California worked to attend, cheer for, and bring cards, flowers, or other gifts to every sports team and club in their school at least once per year, organizing days when the lesser-known or smaller clubs or teams would receive the same celebration as the football team. When COVID-19 canceled their in-person graduation, the same team organized a “beep and greet” event in which they made each senior a personalized, congratulatory poster, and organized a drive-thru event to salvage the day.

156

Z. Ivcevic et al.

A recent study followed 22 inspirED teams from private, public, and alternative secondary schools located in urban, suburban, and rural locations from 10 states and demonstrated the impact of inspirED on students’ experiences of school climate (Hoffmann et al., 2022). Over the course of 6–9 months, student teams were trained in the inspirED process and supported through the completion of their first A-B-­ C-D project cycle. Their peers (15,990 students) were asked to rate the school’s climate before and after the project, with statistically significant effects reported for improvements in school pride, emotional safety, relationships among students, and students’ perceptions of teaching quality (which includes both content rigor and social-emotional learning). Moreover, 53% of students reported the project helped them, 57% agreed the project made their school a better place, and 68% hoped the team would do more projects in the future. Transformational creativity-linked programs like inspirED need not be limited to the school or microsystem. Indeed, similar applications can be imagined for mesosystems, such as community service projects. Moreover, the scaffolded problem-­ solving process is one that could be used by anyone, from families to town leaders, or policymakers at the district level or higher. For this to happen, however, we need a citizenry with the skills, knowledge, and mindsets requisite to turning creative potential into acts of transformational creativity. As the world continues to face big challenges, well beyond the microsystem in which inspirED incubates, we will need people with the self-efficacy to bring forward and enact new ideas. Identity development work (e.g., Hart, 2005) and self-­ consistency theory (Korman, 1970) both maintain that a person is more likely to think of themselves as a transformational creator if they have previously engaged in transformational creativity. In turn, thinking of oneself as a transformational creator makes it more likely to act as a prosocial changemaker.

 uilding Transformational Creativity Through B Teacher Education When teachers experience self-transformational creativity, under the right conditions and with the right support, they can mold it into a pedagogy toward students’ own creative learning and development. The distinction between self-­ transformational creativity of teachers (developing new teaching practices and habits that enrich one’s work and engender meaning, building motivation and well-being in the vocation of teaching) and student-transformational creativity in learning aligns to earlier distinctions made between teaching creatively and teaching for creativity (Jeffrey & Craft, 2004). Whereas teaching creatively requires conditions of ownership and control for the teacher, teaching for creativity transfers that agency to students by identifying and encouraging their creative identity and abilities and fostering general capacities of creativity, such as curiosity and understanding of the creative process. This section of the chapter describes transformational creativity in

11  Transformational Creativity in Education

157

the classroom as a reciprocal, interdependent process of teacher capacity, agency, and action and student growth and responsiveness. That potential for transfer within the microsystem of a single classroom illustrates a transfer from teachers’ self-transformational to students’ other-­ transformational creativity. For fully transformational creativity to take shape in education, we argue that this transformation at the microsystem level needs to spread across microsystems, such as into students’ home and family environments or to other classrooms or schools through teacher-to-teacher sharing and support. In time, that kind of exchange at the mesosystem could result in exosystem transformation, such as in policy change.

Transformational Creative Agency in Teaching Research on the process of teacher creative development provides illustrative examples and models for how this process unfolds and results in fully transformational creativity in the classroom (Anderson et al., 2021; Anderson et al., 2022a, 2022b, 2022c). School closure during the COVID-19 pandemic created a specific chronosystem context that pushed teachers to strive for fully transformational creativity to maintain their own well-being and support the well-being of their students. The following section frames creative agency in teaching (Anderson et al., 2022b), built on the creative behavior as an agentic action model (Karwowski & Beghetto, 2018), and as the foundation from which teacher professional development for fully transformational creativity can be envisioned and designed. The makeSPACE teacher training program is described throughout to provide a concrete example of how teachers’ self-transformational creativity can be developed. Following this section, a description of how this process can set the conditions for creative engagement through a real-world teacher example illustrates how fully transformational creativity in the classroom can take shape for the teacher and their students. Even though teachers value creativity in the abstract (Rubenstein et al., 2013) observational research indicates creative learning opportunities remain rare in practice (Katz-Buonincontro & Anderson, 2018). For instance, teachers tend to have little tolerance for creative characteristics in students, such as nonconformity (Lee & Seo, 2006), and may consider, inaccurately, students’ academic prowess as a sign of being creative (Gralewski & Karwowski, 2012). Shifting beliefs and attitudes toward creativity in teachers require new knowledge, firsthand experience, and basic, practical ways to integrate creative resource development—creative attitudes, thinking, and behaviors—into their own personal and professional pathway and into their classroom teaching (Anderson, 2020; Lubart et al., 2013). This development and progression is best situated in a social-cognitive theory perspective (Bandura, 1986, 2018), where self-beliefs and values underlie the human drive toward agency and these self-beliefs and values about creativity are key to transforming creative potential to creative action in the world (Karwowski & Beghetto, 2018).

158

Z. Ivcevic et al.

Beliefs, Affect, and Attitudes Teachers’ self-beliefs and attitudes toward creativity are potentially misguided due to a lack of pre-service preparatory and in-service training opportunities to learn about creativity (Bereczki & Kárpáti, 2018). From an ecological perspective, this issue represents an interaction between the microsystem of teachers’ lived experience and culture, the exosystem of their pre-service preparation program and continuing professional development provided by school systems, and the macrosystem of educational policies and philosophies driving those systems. Opportunities for creative development in teaching are often inaccessible or unknown to teachers outside of traditionally creative domains, such as the arts (Orr & Kukner, 2015; White, 2006). Moreover, without explicit instruction about the science of creativity, teachers may hold inaccurate beliefs about how creative potential originates and develops (Anderson et al., 2022a). Similarly, teachers’ creative self-efficacy may be limited by lack of training and personal experience with creative action and anxiety toward being creative or fear of failure about doing something new (Anderson et al., 2022a; Daker et al., 2019). From this agentic perspective, to experience self-­transformational creativity may require a reflective self-evaluation of pre-existing beliefs about creativity in reference to ideas from the science of creativity to identify any internalized barriers, myths, or biases. Teachers may need to facilitate some of these same processes for students. In the makeSPACE program, this process takes place through (a) direct instruction about individual creative resources, (b) a self-reflective and creative process of representing the teachers’ existing creative strengths through visual metaphor, and (c) an interactive process of sharing one’s own work and engaging with the work of fellow teachers as an online community (Anderson et al., 2022c). Consistent and continual teacher reflection makes their ideas, beliefs, and emotional experiences explicit, allowing them to witness how these ideas evolve and develop. The interactive makeSPACE program is a mesosystem intervention, focused primarily on the microsystem of the teacher interacting with other microsystems, such as students and other teachers inside and outside of their schools, and with their school and district who provide support and endorsement of the program. Creative Thinking and Metacognition Once teachers’ attitudes and beliefs about creativity, both in general and in reference to their own potential for creative development, align more closely to an agentic perspective, they are more likely to engage in creative risk-taking in both creative thinking and action. This risk-taking may more closely match their students’ experience when in community with other teachers, such as through a networked professional learning experience blending in-person with multimedia virtual engagement (Anderson et al., 2022c). For instance, in the makeSPACE program, teachers share their own videos of gestural metaphor to describe creativity concepts with peers in the program. In person, they engage with creative thinking exercises to practice

11  Transformational Creativity in Education

159

divergent and metaphorical thinking, while also engaging in improvisational drama practices. The vulnerability of taking risks in a sociocultural learning context of professional development may facilitate cognitive and affective empathy (Carré et al., 2013) for the risk-taking they will ask of students (Anderson et al., 2022a). Because teachers often organize and manage classrooms with an emphasis on conformity in thinking and behavior in an “only-one-right-answer” paradigm, they often hold negative attitudes toward unconventionality and discourage risk-taking (Kettler et al., 2018; Mullet et al., 2016). The process of developing teachers’ openness to unconventionality and support for students’ divergent thinking requires scaffolded steps, just as taking sensible risks in learning for students is a gradual process (Kaufman & Beghetto, 2013). Thus, training must provide them accessible practices to model risk-taking by facilitating exploratory creative thinking processes, both in developing teacher self-transformational creativity and in other-­ transformational creativity with students. Those small steps can lead to bigger lesson “unplanning” (Beghetto, 2019), which begins to relinquish epistemic power over classroom discourse (Jónsdóttir, 2017). This process-oriented knowledge about creativity, self-awareness, and regulation, and understanding of the creative process within a sociocultural learning environment reflect the creative metacognition that fully transformational creativity in the classroom will demand of teachers. In recent research, teachers emphasized how consequential consistent personal reflection was to their growth and well-being in the makeSPACE program (Anderson et al., 2022b). The reflective capacities in creative metacognition help people identify and manage the affective and cognitive processes that arise in the face of creative challenges (Jia et  al., 2019). For teachers, this reflection also provides the opportunity for modeling and messaging for students. For instance, teachers may choose to introduce a creative exercise in their classroom, such as ideating and refining a metaphoric gesture to represent a new vocabulary term—a creative routine they learn and practice in the makeSPACE program. If they have experienced this process themselves and are willing to participate alongside their students, their pedagogical skill will be informed by that empathy as a learner and reveal strategies they can offer as starting places for students’ own approach. Teachers will have the awareness to stop and ask students to think about their approach and try something different and see what results. Teachers will also be able to reinforce the growth-­ oriented creative mindset in how they provide encouragement, feedback, and praise. This creative metacognition will be key in teachers’ development of confidence in their own creative agency in teaching and in their transfer of that knowledge and mindset to students. These facets align with past work elaborating on students’ creative metacognition (Anderson & Haney, 2021; Beghetto & Karwowski, 2017) and likely include (a) self-awareness of strengths and limitations (e.g., a creative routine you know well), (b) contextual knowledge (e.g., predicting how students may respond and adjusting expectations), (c) strategy selection (e.g., ideas for adapting on the fly), and (d) self-regulation (e.g., persisting to the end even if students struggle, awkwardly). As our research has found (Anderson et al., 2022a), development of these general creative thinking and metacognition skills is crucial for teachers in the process toward self-transformational creativity.

160

Z. Ivcevic et al.

Creative Behaviors and Practices During the COVID-19 pandemic, the facilitation of creative practices into teaching life and beyond through the makeSPACE program became a pathway toward participating teachers’ well-being and supporting the well-being of students (Anderson et  al., 2021; Anderson & Haney, 2021). In the creative behavior as agentic action model (Karwowski & Beghetto, 2018), practice and experience with new creative skills can generate greater self-efficacy and fuel more creative risk-taking, experimentation, and growth in a positive feedback loop. In this way, it is important for teachers to start with small, manageable routines so that they can feel successful in providing openings for students’ creative learning and that can become culture-building routines adapted to a variety of classroom situations. As teachers try and adapt new routines, create their own, and extend them into longer instructional experiences, they develop toward self-transformational creativity. They experience greater well-­being, connect more deeply with their calling to teach, and revitalize their potential to spread transformational creativity into the classroom (Anderson et al., 2022b). A Real-World Teacher Example from the makeSPACE Program Advanced makeSPACE program coursework1 scaffolds teachers through an intensive action research process where they develop a theory of change, data-collection procedures, an instructional intervention focused on specific creative resources, and an implementation plan that will provide enough intensity and repetition to ensure the phenomenon of interest can be observed in student engagement. One teacher focused on his Grade 1 students’ self-beliefs about their capacity as an artist, their curiosity, their metaphorical thinking skills, and their handwriting skill development through routine daily practice with drawing. He planned to ask them the same questions each week about their self-perceptions, alongside consistent engagement with drawing practice daily for six weeks. He wanted to see if their perceptions changed and how their skill developed. The teacher planned to facilitate 30-minutes of sketching practice with a variety of prompts and practices that would offer students scaffolded skill-building with motor skills and opportunities to be creative. Prior to this professional development program, the teacher did not feel agentic in his creative capacity in the classroom, but desired new skills. To start, he engaged in empathy interviews to find out how students thought about art and their abilities before starting. He recorded insights in his own documentation that reflected the empathy he developed through his own creative development and a greater understanding for the internal barriers students faced about what fit the definition of “good art.”

 Visit www.makespaceproject.org for more background information about the professional development program. 1

11  Transformational Creativity in Education

161

It was interesting to see how many of the kids associated liking art with “getting it right.” I heard repeated responses about their objects not looking correct. It was a great opportunity to tell them how it was hard for me to draw people. I let them know how when I did it they either came out like stick figures, or out of proportion circles. I told them it was something I wanted to learn too. There were great back and forth conversations where I was able to learn much about their artistic feelings.

When he started the daily drawing routine, he first asked students, “Are you an artist?” and “Do you enjoy art?” When he first asked those questions, only 3 out of 20 Grade 1 students responded affirmatively to being an artist and 5 said they enjoyed art. The number of students stating that they were artists had been climbing each week to the point where 19 out of 20 students responded affirmatively. The trajectory for the question of enjoying art was similar, ending with 18 students responding affirmatively after the fifth week. The teacher always asked these questions in an interview format with follow-up opportunities where students could elaborate on how they felt and why—opportunities for him to deepen his relationship with each student. Alongside these data, the teacher also evaluated the students’ handwriting skills using a 1–5 rubric for quality and legibility. Students started out with an average of 1.2 (he imagined that some had never touched a pencil because of pandemic-related school closure) and ended with an average of 4.6. Students developed new creative identity as artists, new skills in drawing that seemed to support their handwriting, and a new enjoyment of art—all signaling self-transformational creativity in their lives. When the teacher began the 5-week project, he tried to set conditions for creative engagement by eliminating any sense of competition or comparison, by focusing on having fun, by modeling that he was also learning, by providing regular encouragement, and by asking students to reflect on their improvements to help build confidence. To the teacher, the initial hesitancy of students and their disconnection from art was as much a surprise as the improvements he saw in their self-beliefs and skill. In the quote from his action research documentation, the teacher shared the evolution of his own self-transformational creativity through the experience and reflected about the gradual move and openness to a student-centered democratic approach to selecting drawing prompts for the class: I realized that learning was much more messy than I thought. I had some kids have it click right away, and for others it didn’t. The empathy interviews and 5 check-in points really helped me assess where I needed to make adjustments. When I opened up the sketch lessons to more than just my ideas, it made things more meaningful for the kids. The lesson objectives changed once we were able to use the other resource I found from the research. Art hub for kids changed our sketch lesson format, and allowed everyone an opportunity to vote on our next sketch. That made it fun and exciting for the kids.

The anecdote of this teacher’s experience helps to illustrate how the process of fully transformational creativity can unfold in the classroom in a reciprocal and dynamic way between the teacher and their students—teacher’s self-­transformational creativity enabled other-transformational creativity (focused on students), which in turn initiated self-transformational creativity of students. In the teachers’ own self-­ transformational creative process, they became more open and adaptable,

162

Z. Ivcevic et al.

recognizing the potential of including students as collaborators in designing the lessons together. This example emphasizes the critical importance of a teacher’s self-­ reflection and relationship-building through open dialogue with students to ensure benefits for the whole community of learners. Most importantly, this example reinforces the creative agency a teacher must develop to engage in fully transformational creativity that will challenge their assumptions, their classroom authority, their instructional patterns, and, quite possibly, their foundational ideas undergirding their philosophy of teaching and learning. Figure 11.1 illustrates components of this process in teacher development, including the importance of developing competency in culturally responsive and sustaining teaching and consciousness of power

Fig. 11.1  A model for transformational creative agency in diverse schools

11  Transformational Creativity in Education

163

and privilege when aspiring for transformational creativity with diverse students— whose cultural assets are often marginalized in education (Hammond, 2015). The classroom example above provides a window into how teachers’ self-­ transformational creative agency can shape students’ creative development and how it can cross levels within the microsystem. For instance, the teacher also shared that parents were “blown away” by their students’ creative and artistic demonstrations in the sketches they brought home. Students’ development in the classroom led to new opportunities and support for creative expression at home, providing hope and inspiration for parents. Students’ transformational creativity served as the pathway for the spread from classroom to home, but the teachers’ transformational creativity remained as the original source for this rippling effect.

 uture Directions for Research on Transformational F Creativity in Education As a nascent area of research, transformational creativity is in a dire need of theoretical models that can direct future empirical research and inspire experimental and interventional work. There is nothing as practical as a good theory (Lewin, 1951). In addition to psychological and social attributes that facilitate creative thinking and action that have been identified in general models of creativity (Amabile, 1996; Amabile & Pratt, 2016; Sternberg & Lubart, 1991), we need to identify those attributes that can be specifically associated with transformational creativity. Research on specific motives for creativity can provide insights into one set of such distinguishing individual difference attributes. Forgeard (2022) showed that prosocial motives are prominent in inspiring creative work in the arts and sciences, but they remain understudied. We argue that research on transformational creativity and education for transformational creativity need to also take into account the contexts in which it is embedded. Although we know that creative thinking skills can be built in both children and adults (Ruiz-del-Pino et al., 2022; Scott et al., 2004), training programs tend to be agnostic of the nature of creativity and effects of training programs are often assessed using value-neutral tests, most commonly divergent thinking skills, such as those measured by the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. To examine the effects of educational programs, we should measure not only such general creative thinking abilities or even creativity of actions in real-life settings (e.g., rated creativity of teachers’ lesson plans) but also the effects of products or performance on their intended audiences. For instance, effectiveness of a program such as inspirED should examine creativity of students’ products and also their ability to create desired improvements in school climate. In considering transformations, the first question is who or what is being transformed, followed by the question of how. In the context of education, we can transform and enhance the lives of students and their families, interactions between

164

Z. Ivcevic et al.

students and teachers, whole schools, or national (and perhaps international) educational systems. The ecological systems model draws our attention to examining the spread of changes, from self-transformational creativity of teachers (such as in the example of the makeSPACE program) to fully transformational creativity when teachers influence students and their work positively affects others. Future research should examine to what extent and through which mechanisms transformational creativity of teachers can spread to influence other classrooms in the same school or other schools in a district and how student creativity can have a ripple effect and influence others. Understanding the mechanisms of spreading influence (along with supports and barriers to it) will enable deliberate building of transformational creativity through the education systems. Acknowledgments  Work of Zorana Ivcevic on this chapter was made possible with the support by the Fundacion Botin (Emotions, Creativity and the Arts grant).

References Aldridge, J.  M., & McChesney, K. (2018). The relationships between school climate and adolescent mental health and wellbeing: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Educational Research, 88, 121–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2018.01.012 Amabile, T.  M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity. Westview Press. Amabile, T. M., & Pratt, M. G. (2016). The dynamic componential model of creativity and innovation in organizations: Making progress, making meaning. Research in Organizational Behavior, 36, 157–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2016.10.001 Anderson, R. C. (2020). Creative development. In V. P. Glaveanu (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the possible. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00700641 Anderson, R.  C., & Haney, M. (2021). Reflection in the creative process of early adolescents: The mediating roles of creative metacognition, self-efficacy, and self-concept. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 15(4), 612–626. Anderson, R.  C., Bousselot, T., Katz-Buoincontro, J., & Todd, J. (2021). Generating buoyancy in a sea of uncertainty: Teachers creativity and well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic. Frontiers in Psychology, 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.614774 Anderson, R. C., Katz-buonincontro, J., Bousselot, T., Mattson, D., Beard, N., Land, J., & Livie, M. (2022a). How am I a creative teacher? Beliefs, values, and affect for integrating creativity in the classroom. Teaching and Teacher Education, 110, 103583. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. tate.2021.103583 Anderson, R. C., Katz-Buonincontro, J., Livie, M., Land, J., Beard, N., Bousselot, T., & Schuhe, G. (2022b). Reinvigorating the desire to teach: Teacher professional development for creativity, agency, stress reduction, and wellbeing. Frontiers in Education, 7, 1–16. https://doi. org/10.3389/feduc.2022.848005 Anderson, R. C., Katz-Buonincontro, J., Bousselot, T., Land, J., Livie, M., & Beard, N. (2022c). Space that was safe to explore and learn: Stretching the affordances for networked professional learning in creativity for educators. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 38(4), 55–75. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.7879 Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Prentice Hall. Bandura, A. (2018). Toward a psychology of human agency: Pathways and reflections. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(2), 130–136. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617699280

11  Transformational Creativity in Education

165

Bassok, D., Latham, S., & Rorem, A. (2016). Is kindergarten the new first grade? AERA Open, 1(4), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858415616358 Bear, G.  G., Gaskins, C., Blank, J., & Chen, F.  F. (2011). Delaware School Climate Survey-­ Student: Its factor structure, concurrent validity, and reliability. Journal of School Psychology, 49, 157–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2011.01.001 Beghetto, R. A. (2019). Structured uncertainty: How creativity thrives under constraints and uncertainty. In C. A. Mullen (Ed.), Creativity under duress in education? (pp. 27–40). Springer. Beghetto, R. A., & Karwowski, M. (2017). Toward untangling creative self-beliefs. In M. Karwowski & J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), The creative self: Effect of beliefs, self-efficacy, mindset, and identity (pp. 3–22). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-­0-­12-­809790-­8.00001-­7 Bereczki, E. O., & Kárpáti, A. (2018). Teachers’ beliefs about creativity and its nurture: A systematic review of the recent research literature. Educational Research Review. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.10.003 Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1994). Ecological models of human development. In T.  Husen & T.  N. Postlethwaite (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (Vol. 3, 2nd ed., pp. 1643–1647). Pergamon Press and Elsevier Science. Brown, V.  R., & Paulus, P.  B. (2002). Making group brainstorming more effective: Recommendations from an associative memory perspective. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11(6), 208–212. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-­8721.00202 Carré, A., Stefaniak, N., D’Ambrosio, F., Bensalah, L., & Besche-Richard, C. (2013). The basic empathy scale in adults (BES-A): Factor structure of a revised form. Psychological Assessment, 25(3), 679–691. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032297 Chandler, D. E., Kram, K. E., & Yip, J. (2011). An ecological systems perspective on mentoring at work: A review and future prospects. The Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 519–570. https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2011.576087 Daker, R. J., Cortes, R. A., Lyons, I. M., & Green, A. E. (2019). Creativity anxiety: Evidence for anxiety that is specific to creative thinking, from STEM to the arts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. Day, J. K., Perez-Brumer, A., & Russell, S. T. (2018). Safe schools? Transgender youth’s school experiences and perceptions of school climate. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 47, 1731–1742. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-­018-­0866-­x Dee, T., & Jacob, B. (2010). Evaluating NCLB: Accountability has produced substantial gains in math skills but not in reading. Education Next, 10(3), 54–62. Fish, J., & Syed, M. (2018). Native Americans in higher education: An ecological systems perspective. Journal of College Student Development, 59(4), 387–403. https://doi.org/10.1353/ csd.2018.0038 Forgeard, M. (2022). Prosocial motivation and creativity in the arts and sciences: Qualitative and quantitative evidence. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000435 Gralewski, J., & Karwowski, M. (2012). Creativity and school grades: A case from Poland. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 7(3), 198–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2012.03.002 Haderlein, S. K., Saavedra, A. R., Polikoff, M. S., Silver, D., Rapaport, A., & Garland, M. (2021). Disparities in educational access in the time of COVID: Evidence from a nationally representative panel of American families. AERA Open, 7. Haerpfer, C., Inglehart, R., Moreno, A., Welzel, C., Kizilova, K., Diez-Medrano, J., Lagos, M., Norris, P., Ponarin, E., Puranen, B., et  al. (2020). World Values Survey: Round seven— Country-Pooled Datafile. JD Systems Institute & WVSA Secretariat. https://doi.org/doi. org/10.14281/18241.1 Hammond, Z. (2015). Culturally responsive teaching and the brain. Corwin.

166

Z. Ivcevic et al.

Harrington, D. M., Block, J. H., & Block, J. (1987). Testing aspects of Carl Rogers’s theory of creative environments: Child-rearing antecedents of creative potential in young adolescents. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 851–856. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-­3514.52.4.851 Hart, D. (2005). The development of moral identity. In C. G. Edwards (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation: Moral development through the lifespan: Theory, research, and application (pp. 165–196). University of Nebraska Press. Hoffmann, J. D., & De France, K. (2022). Disparities in school experience for minoritized students during the COVID-19 pandemic. Research Square. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-­2062106/v1 Hoffmann, J. D., De France, K., & McGarry, J. (2022). Creativity and connection: The impact of inspirED with secondary school students. Journal of Intelligence, 11, 8. https://doi.org/10.3390/ jintelligence11010008 Hoffmann, J.  D., Ivcevic, Z., & Maliakkal, N. (2021). Enhancing creativity skills of children enrolled in an emotion rich art-based course. Empirical Studies in the Arts, 39(2), 123–148. https://doi.org/10.1177/0276237420907864 Hoffmann, J.  D., Ivcevic, Z., Zamora, G., Bazhydai, M., & Brackett, M. (2016). Intended persistence: Comparing academic and creative challenges in high school. Social Psychology of Education, 19(4), 793–816. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-­016-­9362-­x Hong, J. S., & Espelage, D. L. (2012). A review of research on bullying and peer victimization in school: An ecological system analysis. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17(4), 311–322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2012.03.003 Ivcevic, Z., Ebert, M., Hoffmann, J., & Brackett, M. (2017). Creativity in the domain of emotions. In J. C. Kaufman, J. Baer, & V. Glaveanu (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of creativity across different domains (pp. 525–549). Cambridge University Press. Ivcevic, Z., & Hoffmann, J.  D. (2019). Emotions and creativity: From process to person and product. In J.  C. Kaufman & R.  S. Sternberg (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 273–295). Cambridge University Press. Ivcevic, Z., Hoffmann, J. D., & McGarry, J. A. (2022). Scaffolding positive creativity in secondary school students. Education Sciences, 12, 239. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12040239 Jeffrey, B., & Craft, A. (2004). Teaching creatively and teaching for creativity: Distinctions and relationships. Educational Studies, 30(1), 77–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305569032000159750 Jia, X., Li, W., & Cao, L. (2019). The role of metacognitive components in creative thinking. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02404 Jónsdóttir, S. R. (2017). Narratives of creativity: How eight teachers on four school levels integrate creativity into teaching and learning. Thinking Skills and Creativity. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. tsc.2017.02.008 Karwowski, M., & Beghetto, R.  A. (2018). Creative behavior as agentic action. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 13(4), 402–415. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000190 Katz-Buonincontro, J., & Anderson, R. C. (2018). How do we get from good to great? The need for better observation studies of creativity in education. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1–5. https:// doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02342 Kaufman, J. C. (2018). Finding meaning with creativity in the past, present, and future. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(6), 734–749. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691618771981 Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Beyond big and little: The Four C Model of Creativity. Review of General Psychology, 13, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013688 Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2013). In praise of Clark Kent: Creative metacognition and the importance of teaching kids when (not) to be creative. Roeper Review, 35(3), 155–165. https:// doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2013.799413 Kettler, T., Lamb, K.  N., Willerson, A., & Mullet, D.  R. (2018). Teachers’ perceptions of creativity in the classroom. Creativity Research Journal, 30(2), 164–171. https://doi.org/10.108 0/10400419.2018.1446503 Konold, T., Cornell, D., Jia, Y., & Malone, M. (2018). School climate, student engagement, and academic achievement: A latent variable, multilevel multi-informant examination. Aera Open, 4(4), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584188156

11  Transformational Creativity in Education

167

Korman, A. K. (1970). Toward an hypothesis of work behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 54(1, Pt.1), 31–41. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0028656 Kwaśniewska, J.  M., Gralewski, J., Witkowska, E.  M., Kostrzewska, M., & Lebuda, I. (2018). Mothers’ personality traits and the climate for creativity they build with their children. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 27, 13–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2017.11.002 Kwaśniewska, J. M., & Lebuda, I. (2017). Balancing between roles and duties–the creativity of mothers. Creativity. Theories–Research-Applications, 4(1), 137–158. https://doi.org/10.1515/ ctra-2017-0007 Lee, E.  A., & Seo, H.  A. (2006). Understanding of creativity by Korean elementary teachers in gifted education. Creativity Research Journal, 18(2), 237–242. https://doi.org/10.1207/ s15326934crj1802_9 Lerner, R. M. (2002). Concepts and theories of human development. Erlbaum. Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science—Selected theoretical papers by Kurt Lewin. Harper & Row. Lubart, T., Zenasni, F., & Barbot, B. (2013). Creative potential and its measurement. International Journal for Talent Development and Creativity, 1(2), 41–50. Madjar, N., Oldham, G.  R., & Pratt, M.  G. (2002). There’s no place like home? The contributions of work and nonwork creativity support to employees’ creative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 45(4), 757–767. https://doi.org/10.2307/3069309 Menken, K. (2006). Teaching to the test: How No Child Left Behind impacts language policy, curriculum, and instruction for English language learners. Bilingual Research Journal, 30(2), 521–546. https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2006.10162888 Mullet, D. R., Willerson, A., Lamb, N., & Kettler, T. (2016). Examining teacher perceptions of creativity: A systematic review of the literature. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 21. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.tsc.2016.05.001 Ollier-Malaterre, A., Sarkisian, N., Stawiski, S., & Hannum, K.  M. (2013). Work–life balance and performance across countries: Cultural and institutional approaches. In D.  A. Major & R.  J. Burke (Eds.), Handbook of work–life integration among professionals (pp.  357–380). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781781009291.00030 Orr, A.  M., & Kukner, J.  M. (2015). Fostering a creativity mindset in content area pre-service teachers through their use of literacy strategies. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 16, 69–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2015.02.003 Parcerisa, L., Fontdevila, C., & Verger, A. (2020). Understanding the PISA influence on national education policies: A focus on policy transfer mechanisms. In S. Jornitz & A. Wilmers (Eds.), International perspectives on school settings, education policy and digital strategies. A transatlantic discourse in education research (pp. 185–198). Barbara Budrig Verlag. Parolin, Z., & Lee, E.  K. (2021). Large socio-economic, geographic and demographic disparities exist in exposure to school closures. Nature Human Behaviour, 5(4), 522–528. https://doi. org/10.1038/s41562-­021-­01087-­8 Plath, S. (1975). Letters home: Correspondence 1950–1963. Harper Collins Publishers. Pons, X. (2017). Fifteen years of research on PISA effects on education governance. European Journal of Education, 52(2), 131–144. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26609362 Reiter-Palmon, R. (2017). The role of problem construction in creative production. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 51(4), 323–326. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.202 Rinne, T., Steel, G. D., & Fairweather, J. (2013). The role of Hofstede’s individualism in national-­ level creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 25(1), 129–136. https://doi.org/10.1080/1040041 9.2013.752293 Rubenstein, L.  D., McCoach, D.  B., & Siegle, D. (2013). Teaching for Creativity Scales: An instrument to examine teachers’ perceptions of factors that allow for the teaching of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 25(3), 324–334. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2013.813807 Ruiz-del-Pino, B., Fernández-Martín, F.  D., & Arco-Tirado, J.  L. (2022). Creativity training programs in primary education: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 46, 101172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2022.101172

168

Z. Ivcevic et al.

Runco, M. A., & Jaeger, G. J. (2012). The standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 92–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2012.650092 Said-Metwaly, S., Fernández-Castilla, B., Kyndt, E., Van den Noortgate, W., & Barbot, B. (2021). Does the fourth-grade slump in creativity actually exist? A meta-analysis of the development of divergent thinking in school-age children and adolescents. Educational Psychology Review, 33, 275–298. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-­020-­09547-­9 Scott, G., Leritz, L.  E., & Mumford, M.  D. (2004). The Effectiveness of creativity training: A quantitative review. Creativity Research Journal, 16(4), 361–388. https://doi.org/10.1207/ s15326934crj1604_1 Seibyl, J., Hoffmann, J. D., Baumsteiger, R., & McGarry, J. A. (2020, August). What our high schools need: A content analysis of student-led school climate improvement projects. Poster presentation at the American Psychological Association annual meeting [Virtual due to COVID-19]. Snyder, S. E., & Duchschere, J. E. (2022). Revisiting ecological systems theory: Practice implications for juvenile justice youth. Translational Issues in Psychological Science, 8(2), 234–245. https://doi.org/10.1037/tps0000324 Sternberg, R.  J. (2021). Transformational creativity: The link between creativity, wisdom, and the solution of global problems. Philosophies, 6(3), 75. https://doi.org/10.3390/ philosophies6030075 Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1991). An investment theory of creativity and its development. Human Development, 34(1), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1159/000277029 Tang, Y., Huang, X., & Wang, Y. (2017). Good marriage at home, creativity at work: Family– work enrichment effect on workplace creativity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(5), 749–766. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2175 Thapa, A., Cohen, J., Guffey, S., & Higgins-D’Alessandro, A. (2013). A review of school climate research. Review of Educational Research, 83, 357–385. https://doi. org/10.3102/0034654313483907 Voight, A., Hanson, T., O’Malley, M., & Adekanye, L. (2015). The racial school climate gap: Within-school disparities in students’ experiences of safety, support, and connectedness. American Journal of Community Psychology, 56(3), 252–267. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10464-­015-­9751-­x Walter, M.  C., & Lippard, C.  N. (2017). Head start teachers across a decade: Beliefs, characteristics, and time spent on academics. Early Childhood Education Journal, 45(5), 693–702. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-­016-­0804-­z Wang, C., Berry, B., & Swearer, S.  M. (2013). The critical role of school climate in effective bullying prevention. Theory Into Practice, 52(4), 296–302. https://doi.org/10.1080/0040584 1.2013.829735 Wernick, L. J., Kulick, A., & Chin, M. (2017). Gender identity disparities in bathroom safety and wellbeing among high school students. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 46, 917–930. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s10964-­017-­0652-­1 White, J. (2006). Arias of learning: Creativity and performativity in Australian teacher education. Cambridge Journal of Education, 36(3), 435–453. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057640600866049 Zullig, K. J., Koopman, T. M., Patton, J. M., & Ubbes, V. A. (2010). School climate: Historical review, instrument development, and school assessment. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 28(2), 139–152. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282909344205

Chapter 12

Holistic Wisdom Education: Towards Transformational Creativity Eeva K. Kallio, Laura Mononen, and Terhi Ek

 nderstanding Totality of Human Nature: U Philosophical Background The exploration of human nature’s beliefs has traditionally been a domain of philosophical anthropology (Cahill et  al., 2017). Philosophical anthropology grapples with fundamental inquiries: What constitutes the core of human nature, if it exists? Are we inclined towards goodness, badness, or both? Does free will exist? Numerous endeavors to answer these questions have yielded several solutions and frameworks in history and currently (e.g., Hannon & Lewens, 2018; Howard & Küpers, 2022; Pojman, 2005). Divergences emerge based on whether human nature is predominantly seen through a biological, societal, or individual lens. Furthermore, normative questions come into play within this realm: envisioning the potential and boundaries of human beings’ development. These inquiries are inherently value-driven and non-empirical. Nevertheless, these presuppositions underlie the human sciences, influencing research inquiries, methodologies, and consequently, outcomes. The inquiry into human nature also intricately intertwines with contemplating humanity’s place in the cosmos or put differently, our connection to nature as a whole (Cahill et al., 2017). Renowned Finnish philosopher-psychologist Lauri Rauhala (1914–2016) extensively delved into the holistic interpretation of human nature. According to his The research is part of the Wisdom in Practice project funded by the Academy of Finland 2022–2026 (decision number 351238) (Eeva K. Kallio) and by Metsämiesten säätiö Foundation (funding number 20MK034MO) (Kallio and Terhi Ek). E. K. Kallio (*) · L. Mononen · T. Ek University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2024 R. J. Sternberg, S. Karami (eds.), Transformational Creativity, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-51590-3_12

169

170

E. K. Kallio et al.

philosophy, human beings are grounded ontologically in these essential three prerequisites: • A physical embodiment;  • A consciousness aspect of the psyche, beginning with primary foundational consciousness (e.g., sensory perception), followed by secondary meta- and value-­ consciousness (i.e., metacognition and recognized values1); • Existence within diverse contexts, operating as interwoven systems (Rauhala, 1990, 2005). Human interaction takes place within these systems through cyclical “situational control circuit” (Rauhala, ibid.). Notably, intentionality emerges as a core facet of the mind, indicating the capacity to direct attention towards external or internal objects. This concept can loosely be equated to a mental “purpose” or “objective,” signifying that the human ascribes meanings to objects (Rauhala, ibid.). Rauhala terms this perspective a holistic comprehension of human nature, wherein all constituent elements demand consideration in scientific or professional endeavors related to humans, thereby achieving a comprehensive perspective (see, for instance, LaVine & Tissaw, 2015, advocating holism instead of “fragmented examination” within psychology; see also Mascolo & Bidell, 2020; Mascolo & Kallio, 2020). While rigorous analysis is often indispensable in scientific exploration, the overarching holistic context must not be overshadowed. Of significance within Rauhala’s philosophy is his emphasis on the uniqueness of individuals: each person exists in distinctive circumstances and evolves as an individual of unparalleled identity. Rauhala’s philosophical foundation rests heavily upon the phenomenological philosophies of Heidegger and Husserl (Backman, 2016). Phenomenology entails meticulous depiction, analysis, and interpretation of lived psychological experiences. Husserl posits that these instances can solely be objects of reflection and scrutiny for humans, marking the characteristic that distinguishes us from other creatures (Heinämaa, 2014, 2020). The assumptions about human nature wield remarkably potent influence in practical matters. In the Western context, stretching back to the Enlightenment period, the Cartesian perspective portraying humans as a superior species entitled to exploit nature and other life forms has left a major imprint. This perspective raises concerns as it grants humans the authority to determine the fates of other species, enabling domination over both nature and fellow individuals. Regrettably, over the passage of centuries, humans have devised means to perpetually exploit natural resources, subsequently hastening the degradation of the environment through the utilization of progressively sophisticated technologies. The stark division established between humanity and nature has given rise to various worldwide predicaments. Should this trend persist, significant global  Rauhala employs the term “spirit” to denote consciousness encompassing values and self-awareness. However, due to the alternative connotation of this term in English, we substitute it with the aforementioned expressions. It’s important to note that he isn’t alluding to contemporary interpretations of spirituality. 1

12  Holistic Wisdom Education: Towards Transformational Creativity

171

hazards seem imminent. Based on the Rauhala’s framework, the stringent isolation of humans from the surrounding natural world has yielded destructive repercussions on a global scale, engendering substantial existential risks. He asserts that a rigorous demarcation between humans and nature (as systems) doesn’t truly exist; rather, there exists an incessant interplay between the two (Rauhala, 1990, 2005). Rauhala’s holistic perception of human nature originates from his critique of a reductionist-dualistic interpretation of it: he sees that human being is totality in the plurality, that is, is constituted of the mentioned plural factors, but act as coherent unity in plurality (ibid.). Within the realm of education, this dualistic type of viewpoint regarding human nature has led to the present scenario where humans are no longer linked with nature or, in some instances, have become estranged from it— particularly in Western societies. The pursuit of the collective welfare (referred to as self-transcendence in the terminology of wisdom research) should inherently encompass all living and non-living ecosystems, extending globally across the entire planet. This approach ensures that it remains integrated into human experiences and isn’t beyond the scope of deliberate human choices.

Wisdom: Multiple Perspectives, Ethics, and Pedagogies Recently, the attributes that Rauhala has affiliated with the second tier of psyche, namely value- and meta-consciousness, as explicated earlier using psychological terms, have gained widespread linkage with wisdom within nearly all prominent psychological models rooted in empirical evidence (for instance, Grossmann et al., 2020). Additionally, due to the inherent individual uniqueness of human beings, stemming from the intricate interplay of their contextual circumstances, biology, and personal learning history (commonly referred to as the “horizon,” in Rauhala’s terms), the realm of creativity becomes plausible. Some scholars have even identified creativity as a facet of wisdom (Karami et al., 2020; Sternberg, 2003). Multiperspective-integrative thinking and perspectival metacognition are recognized as crucial attributes associated with wisdom (Ardelt, 2004; Baltes & Staudinger, 2000; Grossmann et al., 2020). This development has additionally been recognized as integrative thinking (Kallio, 2011), operating contextually dependent and closely linked to wisdom (Kallio, 2020). It has also been labeled as dialectical thinking (Paletz et al., 2018). Interestingly, dialectical thinking has also been correlated with wisdom. Paletz et al. (2018) posits that dialectical thinking can originate from various sources, such as Hegel, Eastern cultures, or “naive dialectical” perspectives. While not delving to extensive analysis of the historical origins of these terms, we adopt Paletz et al.’s (2018) characterization that mature integrative thinking aligns with Hegelian dialectical logic, which highlights the significance of synthesizing and integrating opposing viewpoints, as well disparate ones (ibid., p. 13). They further suggest that this advanced form of thinking is associated with creativity (ibid., p.  15). However, empirical studies investigating the relationship between wisdom and dialectical thinking present limited evidence, necessitating

172

E. K. Kallio et al.

further research (Chua et al., 2022). These three concepts (wisdom, multiperspective-­ integrative thinking, and creativity) exhibit, however, theoretical resemblances, as they all underscore the capacity to fuse together disparate and contradictory elements. We extend this idea to its application in holistic education as a tool for transformative creativity. Wisdom emerges as a complex, multi-faceted phenomenon. Some initial consensus exists concerning its fundamental psychological aspects (Bangen et al., 2013; Glück & Weststrate, 2022). It can be perceived as the exemplary embodiment of human behavior, a sought-after and deeply esteemed virtue of character (Swartwood, 2022). Depending on the scholar, wisdom encompasses various additional dimensions, along with the integration of multiple perspectives. Notably, ethical action stands as one of the most pivotal dimensions. Nusbaum (2018) has highlighted that self-transcendence may be the distinguishing factor that sets wisdom apart from its closely related fields of study—self-transcendence as defined by ethical intentions, and practical actions geared toward the common good. Given its intricate nature, the diverse dimensions of wisdom interweave with one another. This amalgamation includes the capacity for metacognition, and socio-cognitive perspective-taking, which entails the ability to emotionally distance oneself and foster compassionate sentiments toward others (Grossmann et al., 2020). These dimensions pave the way for ethical self-transcendence. Wisdom predominantly finds its roots in life experiences (Glück & Bluck, 2013) and the consequent process of learning of them. In addition, intentional pedagogy can have at least some impact on this issue (Tynjälä et al., In submission). Wisdom doesn’t emerge mysteriously during adulthood; it necessitates an ongoing journey of experiential growth. For instance, metacognition gradually develops across the lifespan, from childhood through adulthood (Gascoine et al., 2017), although there exist varying findings about its initial appearance. Metacognition stands as an essential component of integrative thinking, making these findings of notable significance. This principle extends to all the attributes tied to wisdom: none of them can fully manifest in adulthood without prior developmental groundwork. Nevertheless, during earlier stages of development, genetic inheritance, cultural influences, and upbringing significantly shape this process (LoBue et al., 2019; Whitebread et al., 2019). In adulthood, these factors are integrated with one’s own self-determination and agency (Ferrero, 2022; Lemmetty & Collin, 2020). This interaction enables the prospect of self-education: within formal education, societal influences direct the individual, but later in life, one can shift to becoming the subject of their own self-education and -cultivation (Levenson et  al., 2001). Ancient philosophies have used pragmatic training methods, techniques like imagery work to facilitate this kind of personal transformation (Hadot, 2002). Presently, some of such techniques is integrated into cognitive psychotherapy, and historically they can be traced back to the ancient philosophical school of Stoicism (Robertson, 2019). In both instances, the aim remains the transformation of one’s mindset through specific behavioral modification methods as imagery (Hagger & Convoy, 2020), constituting a form of self-education.

12  Holistic Wisdom Education: Towards Transformational Creativity

173

Creative Mind and Its Capacity for Transformation The realm of creativity research presents a paradox: it is simultaneously marked by the exceptional, the challenging, and the extraordinary, while also being rooted in the universal, the commonplace, and the ordinary. The concept of creativity is profoundly intricate and has been interpreted in numerous ways (Sternberg, 2021). Often, creativity is defined as the result of a process that involves the “ability to generate a solution that is both novel and appropriate” (Sternberg, 1999, p.  3). Although Runco and Jaeger (2012) attribute the formal definition to Stein (1953), earlier researchers and thinkers had already hinted at similar descriptions, and this perspective remains dominant in Western approaches to creativity (Sternberg, 2021). Recent times have brought to light the realization that this understanding of creativity falls short; a significant portion of creativity is harnessed for malicious purposes. The concept of transformative creativity (Sternberg, 2021) now demands attention, focusing on elucidating how the innovative and valuable creations are utilized, and how the capacity and inclination to ethically assess the outcomes of creativity can be better facilitated. Understanding creativity in real-life situations (outside of controlled laboratory environments), and particularly the way it bestows happiness, internal motivation, and a state of flow upon those engaged, remains an intricate phenomenon that continues to challenge scientists in terms of explanation (Csikszentmihalyi, 2019). In recent times, the field of creativity research has been noted to be undergoing a crisis due to its previous emphasis on individualistic and static approaches to exploring creativity (Glăveanu, 2014; Malinin, 2019). Furthermore, there’s a consensus that in order for the field to progress, a new language capable of encompassing its systemic and contextual nature must be developed (Glăveanu, 2013; Montuori, 2011). A shift toward a dynamic systems approach has been proposed as a paradigmatic change (Malinin, 2016, 2019; Montuori, 2011), which reshapes how creativity is theorized, conceptualized, and subsequently put into practice in research settings. This change in perspective influences the understanding of creativity as a phenomenon, taking into account its intricate interactions and influences, ultimately leading to a more nuanced and holistic exploration. The “4E paradigm” of cognition is firmly rooted in the dynamical systems paradigm and the principles of complexity science (Thompson, 2010; Malinin, 2019). This framework asserts that the mind is embodied, embedded, enacted, and extended (Newen et al., 2018a). It proposes that mental processes do not occur in isolation or exclusively within the confines of the mind (dualism); rather, they are rooted in the brain and the body (embodied), and they are intertwined with the physical, social, and cultural environment (embedded). According to this view, mind actively participates in shaping its surroundings (enactive) and also incorporates technology as an extension of its cognitive processes (extended). The notion that cognition is oriented toward action and is most effectively understood within the context of the interaction between a person and their environment has gained prominence since the early twenty-first century (Newen et al., 2018b).

174

E. K. Kallio et al.

This perspective acknowledges the intricate interplay between an individual’s cognitive processes and the external world they engage with. The perspective of embodied dynamism concerning the mind and creativity offers a profound comprehension of subjectivity and the evolution of the self. It places greater emphasis than preceding viewpoints on how the mind interacts with its surroundings, as well as with tools and artifacts (the results of human creativity), as pivotal elements in the emergence of creativity (Glăveanu, 2013; Malinin, 2019). The skilled, creative practitioner works ‘in the moment’, ‘hands-on’ and reflects ad hoc as well as after the creative process, refining their creations as well as their own creative thinking and action process (Schön, 1983) and their unique way of seeing the world (Gabora, 2016). The capacity to withstand the uncertainties inherent in the creative process and the diversity and richness of ideas constitute the foundational attributes of a creative mind (Gabora, 2016). Consequently, a fundamental trait of a creative mind is the ability to manage conflicts and navigate through states of disequilibrium, which necessitates aptitude in synthesis and integration. Integrative thinking, which welcomes and embraces a wide array of thinking styles (Kallio, 2011, 2020) is pivotal in this regard.

Holistic Pedagogy to Transformational Creativity Holistic Education Throughout history, human growth and development have been scrutinized from myriad viewpoints. Educational objectives, whether formal or informal, have experienced shifts over the years driven by policies and values. In recent times, the question of education’s role in preventing ecological catastrophes and addressing other complex challenges has emerged. Despite this, education has not yielded solutions to prevent human actions and their repercussions, which have led to numerous issues for both humanity and the planet. How can we cultivate individuals who make choices beneficial for the entire world while acting as free agents? We posit that holistic education presents itself as a promising avenue to achieve this aspiration. Holistic education is an approach that encompasses a range of multimodal tools and methodologies, spanning emotional, volitional, cognitive, and ethical aspects of education in tandem (Miller et al., 2019). This educational paradigm is crucial in addressing substantial global and societal challenges, and it is requiring the harmonization of diverse psychological domains. Pedagogy rooted in action, incorporating emotional and affective dimensions, emerges as a potent mechanism for achieving enduring outcomes, such as fostering a strong bond with nature and cultivating positive attitudes toward it (Barrable, 2019). Thereby this kind of holistic pedagogy can be one way to support transformational creativity.

12  Holistic Wisdom Education: Towards Transformational Creativity

175

When discussing the concept of education, we are referring to a broad scope that encompasses learners of all ages, both within formal institutions and informal contexts. Education surpasses mere socialization (as discussed by Martusewicz, 2022; Leonard, 2016; Noddings, 2007). Martusewicz (2022) advocates for a pedagogy of responsibility that extends to encompass not only human beings but also non-human species, aligning with the principles of ecopedagogy (Misiaszek, 2020, 2021, 2022). This paradigm shift involves moving away from the prevailing anthropocentric standpoint. Simultaneously, humans are prompted to introspect upon their own responsibilities, ethical commitments, and worldviews through self-awareness and profound contemplation, akin to “self-techniques” (Foucault, 1988; Hadot, 2002). Everyday life presents numerous moral and value-related dilemmas that prove challenging to address ethically from a planetary perspective (Misiaszek, 2021). This underscores the necessity for a comprehensive understanding of the human condition, along with a holistic approach that facilitates a broader outlook and an appreciation of wholeness. In line with this, psychological research on wisdom emphasizes the role of ethics. Ethical wisdom pedagogy (Arthur et al., 2016) seeks to foster ethical thinking and behaviors with character and virtue education. Concurrently, the responsibility falls upon the individual: a journey of learning to comprehend and clarify one’s values (Dąbrowski, 1967/2015). Negotiating the perpetual conflict between external expectations and the acceptance of responsibility and implementation of actions proves to be intricate, particularly in the context of acknowledging individual autonomy and the power to choose. Holistic education is a form of education that aims to nurture the whole individual, encompassing the mind, body, and spirit (Miller et al., 2019). Nature assumes a significant role in holistic pedagogy, as its endeavors to align with the natural world, emphasizing holistic interdependence and interconnectedness as guiding principles for teaching and learning (ibid., p. xxiv). In contemporary times, its significance becomes evident in its purpose: “Holistic education delves into profound learning that encompasses the entirety of the human being. This education also holds the promise of fostering growth and flourishing for both the planet and all its inhabitants” (ibid., xxv). In the present context, this implies coexisting harmoniously with diverse species and the entire ecosystem. However, we must also grasp transformative creativity aspect, understanding the necessity for individuals to undergo profound personal transformation, beyond merely effecting changes in systems (Krishnamurti, 2010). Our theoretical starting points are summarized in Fig. 12.1.

176

E. K. Kallio et al.

Fig. 12.1  Summary of the main theoretical claims of the article

I nitial Findings: Appearance of Transformative Creativity in Finnish Preschool Education in a Forest Environment Holistic education endeavors to align education with nature. Based on Miller (2007) nature at its core is interrelated and dynamic: “We can see this dynamism and connectedness in the atom, organic systems, the biosphere, and the universe itself” (Brantmeier, 2019, p.  80). One illustrative instance of holistic education can be observed in forest pedagogy, which manifests in the Finnish context as curriculum-­ based early childhood education and pre-primary education conducted within a forest setting. A tangible outcome stemming from this holistic learning approach is exemplified in an ongoing study within the research project titled “Development of Wisdom and Construction of Forest Relationship in Preschool Education in Forests” (WIFOR, 2023). The research seeks to answer the query regarding the type of wisdom of 6-year-old children can acquire through learning in forest preschool environment.2  Between 2021 and 2022, qualitative data were gathered through interviews with professionals (N  =  10) employed at two distinct Finnish municipal pre-primaries, where the adjacent forest served as the primary learning milieu. The participants comprised early childhood education teachers and childhood education nurses, with experience ranging from a few months to six years within the forest preschool setting. The data underwent analysis using qualitative data-driven content analysis methodology (Ek & Kallio, 2023). 2

12  Holistic Wisdom Education: Towards Transformational Creativity

177

Based on the initial findings of the research, it appears that the daily activities of pre-primary education within a forest setting, facilitated by adept teachers and educators in a well-organized learning environment, enables of both wisdom and creativity to emerge. Notably, dimensions of wisdom, like compassion (Ardelt et al., 2018) and practical wisdom (Kristjánsson et al., 2021) have surfaced. Compassion become evident in the connections forged with the natural surroundings and the individuals engaged in this environment, including both peers and staff members (Ek & Kallio, 2023). In this case the forest as a learning environment means the diverse areas of forest or forested nature areas where children play, hike, and learn academic and practical knowledge which is mainly curriculum-based but also informal and experienced (Ek et al., in preparation).  Upon dissecting the constituents of wisdom, it became evident that the forms of creativity mentioned earlier might not be achievable without an educational approach that nurtures the growth of wisdom. Play occupies a significant position in fostering creativity and innovation (Bateson & Martin, 2013). The pedagogy in the forest outlined earlier offers children a platform for creativity that is expansive, diverse, and transformative. Nevertheless, these outcomes are not spontaneous; they necessitate the presence of skilled educators and caregivers equipped with a holistic understanding. These professionals play a pivotal role in facilitating the type of imaginative play discussed previously, guiding children in their interactions within natural settings such as forests or forest-like areas, and providing clear directions for environmentally conscious play.

Adult Self-education as a Form of Holistic Pedagogy Throughout world wisdom traditions, a recurring emphasis has been placed on the notion that genuine progress in personal development hinges upon an individual’s own metamorphosis and deliberate pursuit of growth (Foucault, 1988; Hadot, 2002). This process, often referred to as self-education or -cultivation, stands as a central theme within numerous “Eastern” wisdom traditions, as in Buddhism, Hinduism, and Daoism (Gowans, 2021). Equally, it constitutes an integral component of major religions, including Christianity, particularly within the contemplative tradition. Moreover, this concept echoes in contemporary self-help literature. (Schaffner, 2021). The inclination for self-cultivation has been notably prominent in ancient Hellenistic philosophies like Stoicism, characterized by a plethora of self-­techniques: ranging from self-distancing and mental imagery to journaling and meditation (Robertson, 2019). The intricate relationship between creativity, wisdom, and self-education, as well as their dynamic interplay, is elucidated through the perspective of the “Positive Disintegration” model formulated by Kazimierz Dąbrowski (1902–1980). A pivotal concept in his work, resonating with specific wisdom traditions, asserts that personality is not bestowed as a gift, but rather it’s a culmination achieved through a transformative process (Dąbrowski, 1967/2015). Dąbrowski’s viewpoint posits that

178

E. K. Kallio et al.

one’s personality can only be developed through their active engagement and participation in the transformative journey. In a Dąbrowskian context, self-awareness entails not just understanding one’s history but also grasping one’s existence as an embodied and dynamic entity within the self-environment interaction. This encompasses recognizing the boundaries between oneself and the surrounding environment, including personal values and objectives, cognitive-emotional processes, and the capacity to purposefully engage with the external milieu (Dąbrowski, 1967/2015, 1964/2016). The seeds for autonomous and creative action are inherent in these individuals during early childhood, and these tendencies are nurtured throughout adolescence and into adulthood. In Dąbrowski’s perspective (1967/2015, 1964/2016), the presence of inner conflict signifies the potential for development, albeit the culmination of that potential has not yet been attained. Contrarily, an absence of hardship and challenges in life, according to him, indicates a form of pathology. Consequently, if we guide individuals toward an existence devoid of internal tension, we inadvertently provide misguided support and treatment. Within Dąbrowski’s body of work, there exists a prominent emphasis on self-­ education and the notion of “autotherapy,” reiterated consistently. Dąbrowski does not advocate for individualism or negate the importance of seeking assistance or relying on others. Instead, he proposes that others can participate in the process of personal growth as ‘advisers’ (Dąbrowski, 1967/2015, p. xxiv). This terminology is deliberately chosen to shift focus away from the notion of ‘disease’ and foster a context of educational interaction. Such interaction highlights the importance of addressing ignorance and recognizing the areas of our lives where external education, guidance, and counsel are required. In Dąbrowski’s framework, self-education involves the partitioning of the personality into a subject-object relationship, wherein these roles interact within oneself (Dąbrowski, 1967/2015, pp. 135–140, 95–97). For Dąbrowski, self-education represents the culmination of psychological and moral character development. It commences when the individual experiences changes that grant them partial independence from the biological factors as well as social influences of the surrounding environment (Dąbrowski, 1967/2015, 1964/2016).

Final Conclusions As proposed by the OECD (Stevenson, 2022), the objective or aspiration of all education is the flourishing of both individuals and systems, eudaimonia. The term “well-being” could be considered the most suitable modern counterpart for this age-­ old concept, originating from Hellenistic philosophy traditions. We have delineated two pedagogical approaches capable of fostering transformative creativity, consequently nurturing wisdom as well. We presented an illustration from childhood education as well as a proposition for potential of self-education in adulthood. Both strategies presuppose a holistic understanding of human nature.

12  Holistic Wisdom Education: Towards Transformational Creativity

179

In the context of self-education, we draw from a tradition rooted in ancient Greece: “Gnothi seauton,” or “Know thyself,” a directive that has also echoed across various cultures globally. Self-comprehension, particularly comprehending one’s own motivations for action, is pivotal, albeit a challenging endeavor in adulthood. Surprisingly, altering one’s relationship with external systems might be less challenging than changing oneself. While political decisions can’t shape our self-­ understanding or reflective practices leading to wisdom, it’s noteworthy that enduring wisdom traditions advocate for patient techniques to gain self-insight. These traditions assert that the journey is boundless, devoid of a “final solution.” As Lao Tzu aptly stated, “Nature does not hurry, yet everything is accomplished.” Transitioning from a dualistic perspective of human beings to a holistic viewpoint aligns with the paradigm shift in scientific discourse from reductionism to holism (Mascolo & Bidell, 2020; Mascolo & Kallio, 2020). Paradoxes and contradictions are integral components of the dynamical systems perspective, intrinsic to various natural and societal phenomena. These aspects are also pivotal in adult integrative thinking (Kallio, 2011, 2020), and they are playing a crucial role in transformational creativity. The dynamical systems approach embraces nature and evolution as integral to the creative process. This perspective might contribute to the ongoing environmental crisis, as we failed to perceive ourselves as co-creators alongside nature (Montuori, 2017). Instead of being detached observers, we are interconnected elements within the same unfolding tapestry, participants in a creative ecology spanning biosphere, economics, and culture. However, if we neglect to include human self-education within the framework of systemic change, we inadvertently fall back into the very dualistic trap we strive to transcend.

References Ardelt, M. (2004). Where can wisdom be found? Human Development, 47(5), 304–307. Ardelt, M., Pridgen, S., & Nutter-Pridgen, K. (2018). The relation between age and three-­ dimensional wisdom: Variations by wisdom dimensions and education. The Journals of Gerontology. Series B, Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 73(8), 1339–1349. Arthur, J., Kristjánsson, K., Harrison, T., Sanderse, W., & Wright, D. (2016). Teaching character and virtue in schools (1st ed.). Routledge. Backman, J. (2016). Lauri Rauhala (in memoriam) (1914–2016). In Filosofia.fi: Portti filosofiaan (A Gate to philosophy). Eurooppalaisen filosofian seura. https://jyx.jyu.fi/ handle/123456789/53498 Baltes, P.  B., & Staudinger, U.  M. (2000). Wisdom: A metaheuristic (pragmatic) to orchestrate mind and virtue toward excellence. American Psychologist, 55(1), 122–136. Bangen, K. J., Meeks, T. W., & Jeste, D. V. (2013). Defining and assessing wisdom: A review of the literature. The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 21(12), 1254–1266. Barrable, A. (2019). Refocusing environmental education in the early years: A brief introduction to a pedagogy for connection. Education Sciences, 9(1), 61. Bateson, P. & Martin, P. (2013). Play, playfulness, creativity and innovation. Cambridge University Press.

180

E. K. Kallio et al.

Brantmeier, E.  J. (2019). Sustainable peace for the planet. In J.  P. Miller, K.  Nigh, M.  Binder, B. Novak, & S. Crowell (Eds.), International handbook of holistic education. Routledge. Cahill, K.  M., Gustafsson, M., & Wentzer, T.  S. (Eds.). (2017). Finite but unbounded: New approaches in philosophical anthropology (Vol. 12). Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG. Chua, R. Y., Lim, J. H., & Wiruchnipawan, W. (2022). Unlocking the creativity potential of dialectical thinking: Field investigations of the comparative effects of transformational and transactional leadership styles. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 56(2), 258–273. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2019). The rewards of creativity. In J. C. Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of creativity (2nd ed., pp. Xvii–xviii). Cambridge University Press. Dąbrowski, K. (1964/2016). Positive disintegration. Maurice Bassett. (First published in 1964). Dąbrowski, K. (1967/2015). Personality-shaping through positive disintegration. J. & A. Churchill. (First published in 1967). Ek, T., & Kallio, E. K. (2023, March 16). Can children learn wisdom in a forest preschool environment? Poster presentation, NERA conference, Oslo, Norway. Ek, T., Kallio, E. K., & Kuukka, A. (in preparation). The forest preschool as a learning environment for wisdom. Ferrero, L. (2022). An introduction to the philosophy of agency. In The Routledge Handbook of Philosophy of Agency (pp. 1–18). London: Routledge. Foucault, M. (1988). Technologies of the self. In Technologies of the self: A seminar with Michel Foucault (Vol. 18). Gabora, L. (2016). Honing theory: A complex systems framework for creativity. arXiv preprint arXiv:1610.02484. Gascoine, L., Higgins, S., & Wall, K. (2017). The assessment of metacognition in children aged 4–16 years: A systematic review. The Review of Education, 5(1), 3–57. Glăveanu, V. P. (2013). Rewriting the language of creativity: The Five A’s framework. Review of General Psychology, 17, 69–81. Glăveanu, V.  P. (2014). The psychology of creativity: A critical reading. Creativity. Theories– Research–Applications, 1(1), 10–32. Glück, J., & Bluck, S. (2013). The MORE life experience model: A theory of the development of personal wisdom. In The scientific study of personal wisdom: From contemplative traditions to neuroscience (pp. 75–97). Springer. Glück, J., & Weststrate, N. M. (2022). The wisdom researchers and the elephant: An integrative model of wise behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 26(4), 342–374. Gowans, C. W. (2021). Self-cultivation philosophies in ancient India, Greece, and China. Oxford University Press. Grossmann, I., Weststrate, N. M., Ardelt, M., Brienza, J. P., Dong, M., Ferrari, M., et al. (2020). The science of wisdom in a polarized world: Knowns and unknowns. Psychological Inquiry, 31(2), 103–133. Hadot, P. (2002). What is ancient philosophy? Harvard University Press. Hagger, M., & Convoy, D. (2020). Imagery, visualization, and mental simulation interventions. In M. Hagger, L. Cameron, K. Hamilton, N. Hankonen, & T. Lintunen (Eds.), 2020 (pp. 479–494). The handbook of behavior change (Cambridge handbooks in psychology). Hannon, E., & Lewens, T. (Eds.). (2018). Why we disagree about human nature. Oxford University Press. Heinämaa, S. (2014). Husserl’s ethics of renewal: A personalistic approach. In M.  Tuominen, S.  Heinämaa, & V.  Mäkinen (Eds.), New perspectives on aristotelianism and its critics (pp. 196–212). Brill. Heinämaa, S. (2020). Self—A phenomenological account: Temporality, finitude and intersubjectivity. Diogenes, 269–270, 81–94. Howard, C.  A., & Küpers, W.  M. (2022). Posthumanism and anthropology. In S.  Herbrechter, I. Callus, M. Rossini, M. Grech, M. de Bruin-Molé, & C. John Müller (Eds.), Palgrave handbook of critical posthumanism. Palgrave Macmillan.

12  Holistic Wisdom Education: Towards Transformational Creativity

181

Kallio, E. (2011). Integrative thinking is the key: An evaluation of current research into the development of adult thinking. Theory & Psychology, 21(6), 785–801. Kallio, E.  K. (2020). From multiperspective to contextual integrative thinking in adulthood. Considerations on theorisation of adult thinking and its place as a component of wisdom. In E. K. Kallio (Ed.), Development of adult thinking: Interdisciplinary perspectives on cognitive development and adult learning. Routledge. Karami, S., Ghahremani, M., Parra-Martinez, F. A., & Gentry, M. (2020). A polyhedron model of wisdom: A systematic review of the wisdom studies in psychology, management and leadership, and education. Roeper Review, 42(4), 241–257. Krishnamurti, J. (2010). Freedom from the known. Random House. Kristjánsson, K., Fowers, B., Darnell, C., & Pollard, D. (2021). Phronesis (practical wisdom) as a type of contextual integrative thinking. Review of General Psychology, 25(3), 239–257. LaVine, M., & Tissaw, M. A. (2015). Philosophical anthropology. In The Wiley handbook of theoretical and philosophical psychology: Methods, approaches, and new directions for social sciences (pp. 21–38). Wiley-Blackwell. Lemmetty, S., & Collin, K. (2020). Self-direction. In The Palgrave encyclopedia of the possible. Palgrave Macmillan. Leonard, M. (2016). The sociology of children, childhood and generation. Sage. Levenson, M.  R., Aldwin, C.  M., & Cupertino, A.  P. (2001). Transcending the self: Towards a liberative model of adult development (pp. 99–116). Maturidade & Velhice. LoBue, V., Pérez-Edgar, K., & Buss, K. A. (Eds.). (2019). Handbook of emotional development. Springer. Malinin, L. (2016). Creative practices embodied, embedded, and enacted in architectural settings: Toward an ecological model of creativity. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1978. Malinin, L.  H. (2019). How radical is embodied creativity? Implications of 4E approaches for creativity research and teaching. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2372. Martusewicz, R. (2022). On Friendship, Activism, and Pedagogies of Responsibility. In R. Ahti, V. Värri, T. Tervasmäki, O. Moisio, & H. L. T. Heikkinen (Eds.), Maailman tärkein tehtävä: Esseitä kasvatuksesta, vastuusta ja toivosta: juhlakirja professori Veli-Matti Värrille (pp. 251–263). Niin & näin. Mascolo, M. F., & Bidell, T. R. (Eds.). (2020). Handbook of integrative developmental science: Essays in honor of Kurt W. Fischer. Routledge. Mascolo, M. F., & Kallio, E. (2020). The phenomenology of between: An intersubjective epistemology for psychological science. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 33(1), 1–28. Miller, J. P. (2007). The holistic curriculum (2nd ed.). University of Toronto Press. Miller, J. P., Nigh, K., Binder, M. J., Novak, B., & Crowell, S. (2019). International handbook of holistic education. Routledge. Misiaszek, G. W. (2020). Ecopedagogy: Teaching critical literacies of ‘development’, ‘sustainability’, and ‘sustainable development’. Teaching in Higher Education, 25(5), 615–632. Misiaszek, G. W. (2021). Ecopedagogy: Critical environmental teaching for planetary justice and global sustainable development (Bloomsbury critical education series). Bloomsbury Academic. Misiaszek, G. W. (2022). Ecopedagogy: Freirean teaching to disrupt socio-environmental injustices, anthropocentric dominance, and unsustainability of the Anthropocene. Educational Philosophy and Theory. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2022.2130044 Montuori, A. (2011). Systems approach. In S. Pritzker, and M. Runco (Eds.). The Encyclopedia of Creativity, 2(2011), 414–421. Montuori, A. (2017). The evolution of creativity and the creativity of evolution. The Spanda Journal, 7, 147–156. Newen, A., De Bruin, L., & Gallagher, S. (Eds.). (2018a). The Oxford handbook of 4E cognition. Oxford University Press. Newen, A., Gallagher, S., & De Bruin, L. (2018b). 4E cognition: Historical roots, key concepts, and central issues. In A. Newen, L. De Bruin, & S. Gallagher (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of 4E cognition. Oxford University Press.

182

E. K. Kallio et al.

Noddings, N. (2007). Aims, goals, and objectives. Encounters in Theory and History of Education, 8, 7–15. Nusbaum, H. C. (2018). Wisdom develops from experiences that transcend the self. In J. A. Frey & C. Vogler (Eds.), Self-transcendence and virtue (pp. 225–250). Routledge. Paletz, S. B., Bogue, K., Miron-Spektor, E., Spencer-Rodgers, J., & Peng, K. (2018). Dialectical thinking and creativity from many perspectives: Contradiction and tension. In J.  Spencer-­ Rodgers & K. Peng (Eds.), The psychological and cultural foundations of East Asian cognition (pp. 267–308). Oxford Academic. Pojman, L. P. (2005). Who are we? Theories of human nature. Oxford University Press. Rauhala, L. (1990). Humanistinen psykologia [Humanistic psychology]. Yliopistopaino. Rauhala, L. (2005). Ihmiskäsitys ihmistyössä [Conception of human nature in work with humans]. Yliopistopaino. Robertson, D. (2019). The philosophy of cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT): Stoic philosophy as rational and cognitive psychotherapy. Routledge. Runco, M. A., & Jaeger, G. J. (2012). The standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 92–96. Schaffner, A. K. (2021). The art of self-improvement: Ten timeless truths. Yale University Press. Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books. Stein, M. I. (1953). Creativity and culture. The Journal of Psychology, 36(2), 311–322. Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.). (1999). Handbook of creativity. Cambridge University Press. Sternberg, R.  J. (2003). Wisdom, intelligence, and creativity synthesized. Cambridge University Press. Sternberg, R. J. (2021). Transformational creativity: The link between creativity, wisdom, and the solution of global problems. Philosophies, 6(3), 75. Stevenson, M. (2022). Education for flourishing. Leading Education Series—Learning Creates Australia. https://www.learningcreates.org.au/findings/leading-­education-­series Swartwood, J. D. (2022). Philosophical foundations for the study of wisdom. In R. J. Sternberg & J. Glück (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of wisdom (pp. 10–39). Cambridge University Press. Thompson, E. (2010). Mind in life: Biology, phenomenology, and the sciences of mind. Harvard University Press. Tynjälä, P., Kallio, E.  K., Paananen, E., Virolainen, M., Virtanen, A., Ek, T., & Heikkinen, H. L. T. (In submission). Towards a Holistic Wisdom Model – Part II: Pedagogical Practices Nurturing Wisdom in Educational Contexts. Whitebread, D., Grau, V., Kumpulainen, K., McClelland, M., Perry, N., & Pino-Pasternak, D. (Eds.). (2019). The Sage handbook of developmental psychology and early childhood education. Sage. WIFOR. (2023). Development of wisdom and construction of forest relationship in preschool education in forests. Research project 2021–2023 (Funded by Metsämiesten säätiö Foundation), Finnish Institute for Educational Research, University of Jyväskylä.

Chapter 13

Transforming Behavioral Science, Creatively Hansika Kapoor and Anirudh Tagat

Imagine that you walk into a cafeteria for lunch and pick up a tray. As you move toward the counter, you see fresh fruits and salads at the start, followed by some yogurt and granola bars, and toward the end of the counter, you see some pizza slices. By changing the order of food available along the counters, behavioral science has nudged you into eating healthier. A nudge is a subtle change in the decision-­ making environment intended to improve the relative attractiveness of certain choices, and was first proposed by Thaler and Sunstein (2008). In the above example, an individual’s bounded rationality is taken into account (in that they do not process all available information prior to making a choice). Simply put, the order in which food is displayed has leveraged the limitations on one’s cognitive capacity. Thus, food choices are intentionally presented so that we prematurely stop looking for alternatives when we find something satisfactory to satiate our appetite. In many ways, the use of behavioral science in public policy is a relatively recent development and has been described as innovative. Elements of creative cognition and action feature in several behaviorally informed programs and policy (Christiansen & Bunt, 2012). Furthermore, the use of well-designed experiments to test the impact of behavioral interventions can help explore changes in individual well-being that were previously hard to examine using self-report data (e.g., surveys). This has spawned an explosion of research that looks to test the impact of small-scale nudges in various contexts to better understand how to transform policy outcomes in a cost-effective manner (List, 2023). However, as DellaVigna and

H. Kapoor (*) Department of Psychology, Monk Prayogshala, Mumbai, India Neag School of Education, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA e-mail: [email protected] A. Tagat Department of Economics, Monk Prayogshala, Mumbai, India © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2024 R. J. Sternberg, S. Karami (eds.), Transformational Creativity, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-51590-3_13

183

184

H. Kapoor and A. Tagat

Linos (2022) show, nudges have had modest impacts at best. Chater and Loewenstein (2022) argue that this is largely on account of increasing emphasis on individual-­ specific intervention (“i-frame”) instead of focusing on system-level changes (“s-frame”). i-frame policies are defined as those that focus on targeting individual differences or cognitive biases to tackle social problems. In contrast, s-frame policies are more concerned with addressing systemic issues in public policy (such as rules or norms). One could think of s-frame policies as being much broader than i-frame policies, and aiming to typically achieve a larger societal benefit. Chater and Loewenstein (2022) go on to suggest that the emphasis of behavioral interventions on the individual comes at the cost of ignoring the potential of system-level changes (e.g., regulation, taxation), and underestimating just how important combining the two approaches may be. By focusing on “s-frame” interventions, it is possible that one could solve larger societal issues that are often the target of public policy (e.g., environmentally conscious, pro-social behavior to mitigate the impacts of climate change). A similar dichotomy is between pro-self and pro-social nudges (Congiu & Moscati, 2022; Hagman et  al., 2015). Pro-self nudges are aimed at enhancing private welfare, and pro-social nudges focus on public welfare (also see Table 13.1). Discussed here are some examples of “i-frame” nudges that have the potential to have wide-reaching implications for the economy, society, and well-being. Each of these comes with some caveats that are highlighted alongside the examples. Arguably, the most popular example of a pro-social nudge relates to the use of default opt-in (or automatic enrollment with an option to opt-out) to raise registrations to be an organ donor. In many European countries, the automatic enrollment of individuals in the organ donor registry increases the likelihood of organ donation (Johnson & Goldstein, 2003). Thus, rather than have those who intend to be organ donors sign up through a form or similar, the use of default opt-in here requires the individual who does not wish to be an organ donor to explicitly withdraw from the registry. The use of such defaults is not without ethical challenges: bioethicists argue that using nudges in the context of organ donor registration takes advantage of the fact that individuals might not be fully aware of what they are signing up for (MacKay & Robinson, 2016). Alternative s-frame interventions that could be implemented in the case of organ donation could be related to providing monetary incentives for signing up to be an organ donor. Another nudge that takes into account human cognitive patterns relates to safety in public transport. Typically, law enforcement involves a combination of penalties and technology-based monitoring of speeding on highways and roadways around Table 13.1  Some instances of behavioral interventions i-frame s-frame

Pro-self Changing the order of presentation of food to encourage healthy eating Adding a sugar tax on sodas to combat obesity

Pro-social Automatic opt-in to become an organ donor Banning single-use plastic bags to reduce carbon footprint

13  Transforming Behavioral Science, Creatively

185

the world to ensure that road users drive within speed limits. In Chicago, for example, road paintings were used to give the illusion that a road user was speeding up by using a series of white lines that became closer and closer. The resulting effect was that users thought that they were speeding up at an increasing rate, and therefore slowed down as they passed through these closing white lines on the road. The city reported a decline in car accidents in the six months following the nudge, relative to the same time period in the previous year (Thaler & Sunstein, 2008). Similarly, in India, where more than 1500 people died while crossing railway tracks in 2021 (National Crime Records Bureau, 2022), a series of behavioral interventions were used in urban Mumbai to help individuals be more cognizant of the risks associated with crossing the tracks. One of these involved painting the tracks at increasing intervals to give those crossing the tracks an illusion that the train was speeding up when in fact it was slowing down. These relatively low-cost interventions can help bring about behavioral change in specific contexts but also come with high opportunity costs. For example, the opportunity cost of implementing a low-­ cost behavioral intervention (i-frame) in a specific location or context is potentially the lives that could have been saved if a s-frame intervention such as putting up fences to prevent crossings. This implies that implementing previously untested interventions in lieu of large-scale “s-frame” systemic changes (e.g., increasing fines and enforcement of crossing railway tracks) is a valuable use of taxpayer money. Furthermore, the impact of such interventions may wear off as time passes, suggesting that they may be short-term interventions at best. Finally, in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, there were many public health interventions that sought to increase vaccine uptake around the world. One example of a nudge (i-frame) used in this context relates to public health messaging when deciding whether or not to get vaccinated. Milkman et al. (2021) find that the most effective messaging relates to text-based reminders prior to the scheduled vaccination that emphasized that a shot was reserved for them. Although not specifically related to COVID-19 vaccination (the study dealt with influenza vaccines, which are usually administered annually), such insights can help inform vaccination policy related to COVID as well. An s-frame intervention in this context might relate to making vaccination mandatory over and above behavioral interventions. As the above examples illustrate, an s-frame intervention is often in service of the common good. This is not to say that i-frame interventions in service of the self cannot have positive spillover effects on social welfare. For example, if an individual is attempting to reduce their alcohol consumption, it could benefit others around them in terms of improved road safety or reduced likelihood of engaging in intimate partner violence. However, as we discuss below, it is likely that such spillovers are smaller in magnitude compared to the more wide-scale impacts of s-frame interventions. Specifically, working toward the common good implies being mindful of others’ welfare and not acting in ways that can detract from collective interest (Hussain, 2018). Developing an intervention that protects the environment by reducing carbon emissions by changing policy at the system level can be argued to be working toward the common good. Apart from featuring in discourse about moral philosophy, the common good also makes an appearance in Sternberg’s (1998, p.  347)

186

H. Kapoor and A. Tagat

definition of wisdom: “the application of tacit knowledge as mediated by values toward the achievement of a common good through a balance among multiple (a) intrapersonal, (b) interpersonal, and (c) extrapersonal interests in order to achieve a balance among (a) adaptation to existing environments, (b) shaping of existing environments, and (c) selection of new environments.” More recently, it also features in Sternberg’s (2021) definition of transformational creativity, where one directs their creativity toward the common good. Semantics aside, through this chapter we argue that behavioral interventions have the capacity to be transformationally creative and reflect wisdom, moving us closer to the common good. To support this claim, we looked for literature conceptualizing behavioral science and programs to be creative products. At first glance, there is a paucity of work that intersects the fields of behavioral science, creativity research, and public policy. We came across a book that used behavioral science to nudge individuals to be more creative (Chesters & Mahoney, 2021), an empirical tool that led to more creative ideas using behavioral science (Caraban et al., 2020), scholarship on creativity, and policy studies (Nagel, 2000), “The 6 most creative nudges according to experts,” (Buric, n.d.), and a short post on how behavioral science is getting creative (WARC, 2016). A policy document outlining the importance of innovation and creativity in policy seemed to be the most relevant to this chapter, wherein the “need for actively bringing creative processes into policymaking” (Christiansen & Bunt, 2012, p.  3) was highlighted. This dovetails well with our argument that the successful application of behavioral interventions requires creativity and that the interventions themselves can be conceived as creative output. However, we were unable to find academic literature that views behavioral science to be a creative endeavor, let alone a transformationally creative one. The rest of the chapter is organized as follows: In the next section, we illustrate how behavioral science can also have a dark side, through sludges and dark patterns. We contextualize these examples within dark creativity and examine dark patterns through the lens of the AMORAL model of dark creativity (Kapoor & Kaufman, 2022). Last, we discuss how and why creativity used in behavioral science needs to be transformational, toward the common good.

Some Bad Apples Imagine that you walk into another eatery where you need to place an order for your food. You remember having visited this place with a friend earlier, who had ordered a burger (which came 20 minutes faster than your meal); you had ordered a salad. Keeping this in mind, you order a burger. In this case, the restaurant has used a sludge to prevent you from making a choice that would be good for you (eating healthy) by making it more difficult for you to stick to that decision. Consider another situation that is widely studied in the behavioral sciences literature: canceling a subscription. As Soman (2020) explains, newspaper subscriptions can be notoriously difficult and cumbersome to cancel. The newspaper agency in this case can

13  Transforming Behavioral Science, Creatively

187

get users to sign up easily (you can cancel any time!), but introduces a series of effortful and time-consuming steps to cancel the subscription (e.g., having to fill in a complicated form and send by physical mail), also known as a sludge. In principle, a sludge is defined as frictions in any process, and that can be ultimately welfare-­ reducing (Soman, 2020; Sunstein, 2022). A related concept, called dark patterns (Brignull et al., 2023), is also defined in the Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) and design literature, that refers to ‘tricking’ customers or users into taking an action that they did not intend to (primarily via deception). Dark patterns on the Internet are more common than one might suspect. For example, many websites collect browser-related data and other tracking information from users under the guise of enhanced functionality. However, websites cannot collect this data without prior consent from users who have visited it (most likely for a specific purpose such as booking an airline ticket, making a reservation, or purchasing a product). As Habib et al. (2022) show, there are a variety of online interfaces that can be characterized as dark patterns that induce users to provide consent to collect their data, sometimes unknowingly, but often through deceptive design features. This has implications not just for user experience on a website, but also for consumer protection policy, where website users may be nudged into parting with their data, as consent warnings do not directly allow users to reject data collection. Even in certain investment platforms, users might see dark patterns that deposit their funds into a company-run “wallet” account instead of back into their bank account. As with cookies, this is often done under the guise of enhancing experience or making the process of investment less cumbersome, when in fact it potentially involves changes in how the platform is being operated. Sludges and dark patterns are not solely the domain of technology. Rapid advancements in user experience and interface (UX/UI) have allowed companies to be more creative with dark patterns and sludges across various industries. Some more examples of (largely i-frame) sludges and dark patterns include: • On a website funded by the alcohol industry, information about the harms associated with drinking when pregnant was placed after non-health trivia, which was considerably more difficult to access (Petticrew et al., 2020). • Former President Donald Trump’s campaign used default opt-in settings when soliciting donations, making donors unwittingly “sign-up” for weekly contributions (Goldmacher, 2021). • In Ireland, first-time child passport applications get rejected if the passport office is unable to reach the person who has lent their signature as a witness on the form; the passport office tries to contact the witness by phone only twice and the rejection rate is 40% (Lades et al., 2021). • Timeshares are sold as investments in future vacations and holidays, where one can purchase a stay at a hotel/resort, which can be used at certain times during the year. However, timeshares are often sold on the basis of complete falsehoods, entrapping those who own them. It is nearly impossible to sell or transfer them, and they can end up becoming passive expenditure for many. Timeshare exit

188

H. Kapoor and A. Tagat

companies, which promise to relieve clients of their timeshares have also cropped up, and are in effect absolute scams as well (O’Brian et al., 2023). • It is incredibly difficult to delete a social media account, and most platforms do not allow users to delete their account through mobile apps or mobile browsers. Some use confirm-shaming (inducing guilt by using language like “Are you sure you want to delete?” or “No thanks. I don’t want unlimited one-day delivery.”) to steer people away from this decision (Schaffner et al., 2022). • The use of countdown timers on shopping websites to rush users to get the best deal or discount, inducing impulse purchases (Mathur et al., 2019). • And many more are available on the Hall of Shame of deceptive patterns (www. deceptive.design/hall-­of-­shame) Both sludges and dark patterns are examples of changes in the decision-making environment that could harm consumers or users (Soman, 2020). Specifically, sludges actively make something more difficult to achieve (e.g., extended wait times to receive rebates), whereas dark patterns may covertly induce some behavior that is unintended (e.g., unwittingly signing up for something with hidden fees). Dark patterns have been variously described as being coercive, deceptive, malicious, misleading, obnoxious, seductive, steering, and employing trickery (Mathur et  al., 2021). Further, research in public policy and behavioral economics (with their associated concepts of nudges/sludges) converges with work on dark patterns owing to underlying similarities (Narayanan et al., 2020; Ohm, 2019): • Dark patterns extensively manipulate end-users (e.g., Gray et  al., 2021); in a similar vein, nudges have also been characterized as manipulative, by subverting one’s decision-making autonomy (Hansen & Jespersen, 2013; but see Nys & Engelen, 2017). Sludges increase friction between intent and action, thereby manipulating choices as well (Sunstein, 2022). • Dark patterns and sludges are both fundamentally based on using behavioral principles, to exploit cognitive biases (see also Bösch et al., 2016), and are harmful to individuals and societies. It may be difficult to imagine how clicking “Accept all cookies” on one new website can undermine all of human privacy, but with enough people succumbing to dark patterns, large-scale societal harm can ensue (see also Gunawan et al., 2021). This is especially the case when it comes to contemporary policies around consumer protection in the digital age, such as the European Union’s (EU) General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) law. • From a broader ideological perspective, dark patterns and intentional sludges operate within a capitalist and consumerist ideology. Sludges, with malicious intent to impede actions that are profitable to the user (e.g., saving money by canceling unnecessary subscriptions), benefit corporations that create these frictions. Dark patterns, across domains like online games (Zagal et al., 2013), shopping websites (Mathur et al., 2019), and video streaming platforms (Chaudhary et  al., 2022) are explicitly designed to get users hooked to behaviors that can result in increased revenues for Tech Giants.

13  Transforming Behavioral Science, Creatively

189

Through this chapter, we argue that sludges and dark patterns, particularly the frictions introduced by them, are instances of dark creativity, where one uses originality to meet selfish and even evil goals (see also Cropley et al., 2008). This idea was first written about by the authors in a Psychology Today blog in 2021, where novel sludges were able to maximize inconvenience or harm, intentionally or inadvertently (Kapoor & Tagat, 2021). Further, sludges and dark patterns move away from the common good by enabling unhelpful behaviors and constraining useful ones, not just at the individual level but also systemically.

Is this AMORAL? We now analyze sludges and dark patterns via the AMORAL model of dark creativity (Fig. 13.1; Kapoor & Kaufman, 2022). This is a theoretical framework to understand and explain original behaviors that are self-interested, selfish, or cause outright harm to others. The model illustrates the Antecedents that precede dark creative behaviors, which interact with individual-level Mechanisms and broader societal Operants. Through a combination of these components, the action is Realized, which in turn leads to short-term Aftereffects and long-term Legacy effects. The acronym of the model represents the amoral nature of the underlying creative process, which can be directed toward meeting any goal, regardless of valence. Among the antecedents, we believe that the deployers of intentional sludges and dark patterns are motivated by accruing resources, primarily financial. Investing one’s creativity in maximizing profits is not a bad idea; however, it might be worth investigating whether this has other, potentially unintended consequences in terms of overall social welfare (e.g., with respect to individual liberty, dignity, and well-­ being, among others). Accumulating resources by ensuring that users find it near impossible to, say, apply for a refund on their recent purchase, potentially does more harm than good. For example, among online travel agencies (OTAs), there is extensive evidence that companies use hidden charges that are revealed to users only at the final step of payment for a good or service (Kim et al., 2021). This is a surreptitious way for companies to force customers to eke out funds under the false pretense of a lower price (which updates to a higher one only much later). This might indeed be motivated by raising profits for the company, but often comes at the

Fig. 13.1  The AMORAL model applied to intentional sludges and dark patterns

190

H. Kapoor and A. Tagat

cost of deceiving unsuspecting users who often rely on heuristics (e.g., scanning lists top to bottom until they find a good deal) and are boundedly rational. Next, at the level of the entity deploying the sludge or dark pattern, a relevant operant is their belief system. Organizations that believe it is fine to manipulate, deceive, coerce, mislead others, or artificially constrain their choices are more likely to engage in this kind of dark creative behavior. Research has also shown how dark creativity is likely to be associated with lower levels of all moral pillars (care, fairness, loyalty, authority, and purity; Kapoor & Kaufman, 2021). Therefore, having morally flexible beliefs is not incompatible with using originality for financial gain and harm. Finally, when this unfettered need to earn profits meets unscrupulous morals within a capitalist and consumerist cultural ideology (an operant in the AMORAL model), one can see how dark patterns and sludges are likely to emerge. Although there is no evidence that suggests that specific types of companies are more or less likely to use dark patterns and sludges, there is some research that suggests these deceptive tactics are especially prevalent in the travel industry (such as Booking.com), e-commerce platforms (such as Amazon), and content platforms (such as YouTube ads). It is more likely that dark patterns emerge wherever there are a large number of visitors to a website or a service, or where corporations observe that user attention may be low, which can be exploited. The valence of the realized creative act is relevant to the current discussion. According to the AMORAL model, this can range from noble (for instance, a nudge) to neutral to ambiguous, self-interested, sinful, and evil. Movement along this continuum is hypothesized to be facilitated by three sub-mechanisms: deception, manipulation, and coercion. When original behaviors are infused with these elements, they are more likely than not to become dark creative actions. We find that dark patterns are also notorious for their use of deception, manipulation, and coercion (Narayanan et al., 2020), and when this is coupled with a creative way to present the pattern on a UX (User Experience) platform for instance, it can spell disaster for the user. As Sunstein (2022) indicates, sludges are often directed at meeting selfish needs. For instance, consider if a politician wanted to intentionally discriminate against a group of people by excluding them from a policy, but due to political reasons, was unable to formally include this in the program documentation. Instead, they could use a sludge to deliberately make it tedious for this group of people to access benefits under the policy. Indeed, many government policies fail to adequately take into account the target beneficiaries, and their various constraints (Shahab & Lades, 2021). For example, a group that might need social security benefits may also have low literacy, and therefore not be able to fill out complex paperwork to access benefits. Finally, it is important to consider the aftereffects and legacy that sludges and dark patterns will leave. Due to the recognition of sludges and frictions impeding behavior that can be useful to people, agencies have recommended conducting “sludge audits” to investigate where the behavioral pipeline is getting clogged in an effort to remove the sludge (Soman, 2020; Sunstein, 2022). From a longer-term perspective, dark patterns, especially those like Privacy Zuckering (tricking people into disclosing more personal data than they wanted to) that impinge on users’

13  Transforming Behavioral Science, Creatively

191

personal information, are facilitating changes in privacy laws. Research in the HCI (Human-Computer Interface) domain makes the distinction between UX and Customer Experience (CX; van de Sand et al., 2020), which suggests that customer experience lays broader emphasis on how customers perceive the company or the product with which they are interacting. This could be colored by their UX, as the presence of dark patterns or even sludges in this context could leave customers with a very poor impression of the company or product (Gray et al., 2021). Moreover, users experience a range of negative emotions such as distress and hostility upon realizing that they have been manipulated in the context of digital experiences (Gray et al., 2021). On the other hand, being transparent and upfront about policies (related to data, refunds, redemption, etc.) can help consumers make more informed decisions, and consumers may value this and improve their purchase likelihood (Fu et al., 2019). If anything, this type of deception-free design can lead to more purchases by consumers but is often not favored by companies. This is perhaps because there are many ways to deceive customers, but much fewer ways to be honest with them.

All Roads (Should) Lead to the Common Good Behavioral science relies on effective design to drive change, but what’s effective for one may be detrimental to another. When behavioral science targets user behavior, “good” design can lead to unfavorable outcomes for users, while generating profits for corporations. Sludges and dark patterns are examples of dark creativity, using such design to facilitate behavior change in ways that leave end-users shortchanged. In a utopian sense, all behavioral science should normatively be in service of the common good, just as all creativity should be used to help others. In their initial conceptualization of nudge, Thaler and Sunstein (2008) reinforce this idea by emphasizing that nudge is always for good (emphasis added). However, as the field of behavioral science has grown, and more stakeholders become involved in its use, the dark side of nudges has also grown. The reality, thus, is quite far from this initial intent behind defining nudges as inherently for good. But consider a thought experiment where creativity in behavioral science was consistently transformative. We could • Find new ways to combat rising temperatures by developing sustainable technologies by gamifying how much energy you use as compared to your neighbors through a publicly available leaderboard. • Combine behavioral i-frame interventions such as inducing loss aversion among teachers with s-frame interventions such as improved teacher training programs to make sure children stay in school (Fryer et al., 2012). • Ensure that online misinformation is kept at bay by incentivizing those who share true information, even if it is only social incentives like stars on their profile (Kapoor et al., 2023).

192

H. Kapoor and A. Tagat

• Use a plan-making strategy combined with non-monetary benefits (e.g., meetings with celebrities) to encourage newly eligible voters to register to vote. This could be combined with larger systemic changes related to making the process of registration easier by simplifying forms and documentation requirements. • Enable affordable healthcare for others through inventive methods like donations that are framed as “paying it forward” to the next patient, such as in outpatient visits.

Concluding Remarks and Future Work Nudges and other behavioral science interventions can clearly be transformational. Taking even just the case of household energy reports (HERs) that provide feedback on household energy consumption patterns, Allcott and Kessler (2019) estimated nearly $600 million in welfare gains from feedback’s impact on reductions in energy use. Similarly, Douglas Bernheim et  al. (2015) suggested that theoretically there may be implications for retirement savings and social welfare that come from using default rates (preset savings rates). In other domains related to online privacy— where dark patterns run rampant—research suggests that the economic gains from giving people control over their data can be large but is also subject to various cognitive biases (Lin & Strulov-Shlain, 2023). Whether a government or a private corporation uses the tools of nudge and behavioral science, the effects indeed have the potential to be transformative, especially when they are coupled with system-wide regulations and changes (Chater & Loewenstein, 2022). Across all behavioral interventions, creative problem-solving in policymaking can be a powerful tool to ensure that nudges are used for good; but dark creativity can lead to manipulation, deception, and a loss of social welfare. These are what we have characterized as intentional sludges and dark patterns—where dark creativity meets behavioral science in policy. One of the key implications arising out of this work relates to the regulation of policy interventions, potentially through a sludge audit mechanism (Sunstein, 2022). Furthermore, large-scale consumer protection policies (especially those related to data privacy, such as the GDPR) are important to help tackle newer and more darkly creative ways to embed dark patterns in user decision-making. Research in the economics of social welfare has already hinted at the fact that sludges or dark patterns do not yield positive social welfare outcomes (Shahab & Lades, 2021), and often threaten to exacerbate existing issues around privacy and user experience. Thus, it is important for all stakeholders—academics researching dark patterns, policymakers, designers, and behavioral scientists—to look at dark creativity as a lens through which dark patterns and sludges emerge. We acknowledge that an implicit assumption throughout this chapter is that entities may want to contribute to the common good, and perhaps get lost along the way

13  Transforming Behavioral Science, Creatively

193

or do not know how. For such actors, understanding how to audit existing processes for sludges and dark patterns can yield both profitability and trust among stakeholders. However, there are entities (corporations and individuals, alike) who are less interested in benefitting others and strive toward harming them instead, for their own gain. In such circumstances, it would be important for end users to arm themselves with the tools to sidestep manipulation and coercion (like self-nudging), thereby reclaiming their agency in decision-making environments (Kozyreva et al., 2020). While there may be many novel avenues to mislead and deceive individuals in a range of contexts (both in-person and online), there are only a limited number of means to convey the truth. As we have discussed earlier in this chapter, overemphasizing individual differences leads researchers to treat policy problems as individual-­ specific (i-frame interventions), whereas typically regulation (s-frame interventions) is more effective in helping circumvent the adverse outcomes around dark patterns and sludges. This can be applied to a range of areas from pro-social behavior (e.g., charitable giving), environmental change (e.g., reducing carbon footprints), retirement savings, and online data privacy. There is a vast range of future work that is a natural next step in this context. For example, there could be sludge audits that integrate creativity science by also rating sludges and dark patterns on originality and valence (i.e., whether people believe that it can cause harm or felt manipulation). There are already several studies that attempt to detect dark patterns using algorithms (e.g., Mathur et al., 2021), and perhaps these could be trained to also detect novelty and statistical infrequency to incorporate aspects of dark creativity. One other possible study area is to look at the progenitors of dark creativity in UX/UI design teams, where dark patterns and sludges are typically conceptualized. This would involve a group-level study of dark creativity that has been previously proposed in different contexts (Kapoor, 2023). Next, at the intersection of creativity, behavioral economics, and public policy, one could undertake a detailed econometric study to estimate the economic implications of sludges/dark patterns, delineating who benefits and which stakeholders suffer welfare losses. Finally, it may be useful for behaviorally informed organizations across the world (Soman & Yeung, 2021) to include creativity researchers in their teams, to ensure that behavioral science applied to real-world problems is transformational. Apart from auditing current interventions, programs, and policies based on their novelty and effectiveness, a creative science approach to public policy can (a) foster innovation and experimentation of new methodologies, (b) facilitate adaptive and flexible implementation of ideas, giving due importance to contextualizing these ideas, and (c) propose new solutions to enhance public welfare, with the eventual aim of working toward the common good.

194

H. Kapoor and A. Tagat

References Allcott, H., & Kessler, J. B. (2019). The welfare effects of nudges: A case study of energy use social comparisons. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 11(1), 236–276. https:// doi.org/10.1257/app.20170328 Bernheim, B.  D., Fradkin, A., & Popov, I. (2015). The welfare economics of default options in 401(k) plans. American Economic Review, 105(9), 2798–2837. https://doi.org/10.1257/ aer.20130907 Bösch, C., Erb, B., Kargl, F., Kopp, H., & Pfattheicher, S. (2016). Tales from the dark side: Privacy dark strategies and privacy dark patterns. Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies, 2016(4), 237–254. https://doi.org/10.1515/popets-­2016-­0038 Brignull, H., Leiser, M., Santos, C., & Doshi, K. (2023). Deceptive patterns—User interfaces designed to trick you. https://www.deceptive.design/ Buric, R. (n.d.). When science meets creativity: The 6 most creative nudges according to experts. Inside BE. https://insidebe.com/articles/the-­most-­creative-­nudges/ Caraban, A., Konstantinou, L., & Karapanos, E. (2020). The nudge deck. Proceedings of the 2020 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference, 395–406. https://doi. org/10.1145/3357236.3395485 Chater, N., & Loewenstein, G. (2022). The i-frame and the s-frame: How focusing on individual-­ level solutions has led behavioral public policy astray. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. https:// doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X22002023 Chaudhary, A., Saroha, J., Monteiro, K., Forbes, A. G., & Parnami, A. (2022). “Are you still watching?”: Exploring unintended user behaviors and dark patterns on video streaming platforms. DIS 2022—Proceedings of the 2022 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference: Digital Wellbeing, 776–791. https://doi.org/10.1145/3532106.3533562 Chesters, K., & Mahoney, M. (2021). The creative nudge. Laurence King Publishing. Christiansen, J., & Bunt, L. (2012). Innovation in policy: Allowing for creativity, social complexity and uncertainty in public governance. https://media.nesta.org.uk/documents/innovation_in_ policy_RgbLJKC.pdf Congiu, L., & Moscati, I. (2022). A review of nudges: Definitions, justifications, effectiveness. Journal of Economic Surveys, 36(1), 188–213. https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12453 Cropley, D. H., Kaufman, J. C., & Cropley, A. J. (2008). Malevolent creativity: A functional model of creativity in terrorism and crime. Creativity Research Journal, 20(2), 105–115. https://doi. org/10.1080/10400410802059424 DellaVigna, S., & Linos, E. (2022). RCTs to scale: Comprehensive evidence from two nudge units. Econometrica, 90(1), 81–116. https://doi.org/10.3982/ECTA18709 Fryer, R., Levitt, S., List, J., & Sadoff, S. (2012). Enhancing the efficacy of teacher incentives through loss aversion: A field experiment. National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi. org/10.3386/w18237 Fu, H., Ma, H., Bian, J., Wang, C., Zhou, J., & Ma, Q. (2019). Don’t trick me: An event-related potentials investigation of how price deception decreases consumer purchase intention. Neuroscience Letters, 713, 134522. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neulet.2019.134522 Goldmacher, S. (2021). How Trump steered supporters into unwitting donations. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/03/us/politics/trump-­donations.html Gray, C. M., Chen, J., Chivukula, S. S., & Qu, L. (2021). End user accounts of dark patterns as felt manipulation. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 5(CSCW2). https:// doi.org/10.1145/3479516 Gunawan, J., Choffnes, D., Hartzog, W., & Wilson, C. (2021). Towards an understanding of dark pattern privacy harms. CHI 2021 Workshop: What Can CHI Do about Dark Patterns, 1–5. Habib, H., Li, M., Young, E., & Cranor, L. (2022). “Okay, whatever”: An evaluation of cookie consent interfaces. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems—Proceedings. https:// doi.org/10.1145/3491102.3501985

13  Transforming Behavioral Science, Creatively

195

Hagman, W., Andersson, D., Västfjäll, D., & Tinghög, G. (2015). Public views on policies involving nudges. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 6(3), 439–453. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s13164-­015-­0263-­2 Hansen, P. G., & Jespersen, A. M. (2013). Nudge and the manipulation of choice: A framework for the responsible use of the nudge approach to behaviour change in public policy. European Journal of Risk Regulation, 4(1), 3–28. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1867299x00002762 Hussain, W. (2018). The common good. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Johnson, E. J., & Goldstein, D. (2003). Do defaults save lives? Science, 302(5649), 1338–1339. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1091721 Kapoor, H. (2023). Measuring the dark side of creativity. In M.  A. Runco & S.  Acar (Eds.), Handbook of creativity assessment. Elgar. Kapoor, H., & Kaufman, J. C. (2021). Unbound: The relationship between creativity, moral foundations, and dark personality. The Journal of Creative Behavior. Kapoor, H., & Kaufman, J. C. (2022). The evil within: The AMORAL model of dark creativity. Theory and Psychology, 8. https://doi.org/10.1177/09593543221074326 Kapoor, H., & Tagat, A. (2021). How nudges can be sinister. Psychology Today. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/dark-­creativity/202108/how-­nudges-­can-­be-­sinister Kapoor, H., Rezaei, S., Gurjar, S., Tagat, A., George, D., Budhwar, Y., & Puthillam, A. (2023). Does incentivization promote sharing “true” content online? Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review, 4(4). https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-120 Kim, W.  G., Pillai, S.  G., Haldorai, K., & Ahmad, W. (2021). Dark patterns used by online travel agency websites. Annals of Tourism Research, 88, 103055. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. annals.2020.103055 Kozyreva, A., Lewandowsky, S., & Hertwig, R. (2020). Citizens versus the Internet: Confronting digital challenges with cognitive tools. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 21(3), 103–156. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100620946707 Lades, L., Johnson, J., Connor, R. O., & Policy, E. (2021). “Sludge” in Irish policymaking. Lin, T., & Strulov-Shlain, A. (2023). Choice architecture, privacy valuations, and selection bias in consumer data (Issue 202). https://bfi.uchicago.edu/working-­paper/ choice-­architecture-­privacy-­valuations-­and-­selection-­bias-­in-­consumer-­data/ List, J.  A. (2023). The voltage effect. Business Economics, 58(1), 3–8. https://doi.org/10.1057/ s11369-­022-­00298-­9 MacKay, D., & Robinson, A. (2016). The ethics of organ donor registration policies: Nudges and respect for autonomy. American Journal of Bioethics, 16(11), 3–12. https://doi.org/10.108 0/15265161.2016.1222007 Mathur, A., Acar, G., Friedman, M. J., Lucherini, E., Mayer, J., Chetty, M., & Narayanan, A. (2019). Dark patterns at scale: Findings from a crawl of 11K shopping websites. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 3(CSCW). https://doi.org/10.1145/3359183 Mathur, A., Kshirsagar, M., & Mayer, J. (2021). What makes a dark pattern… dark? Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1–18. https://doi. org/10.1145/3411764.3445610 Milkman, K. L., Patel, M. S., Gandhi, L., Graci, H. N., Gromet, D. M., Ho, H., Kay, J. S., Lee, T. W., Akinola, M., Beshears, J., Bogard, J. E., Buttenheim, A., Chabris, C. F., Chapman, G. B., Choi, J. J., Dai, H., Fox, C. R., Goren, A., Hilchey, M. D., et al. (2021). A megastudy of text-­ based nudges encouraging patients to get vaccinated at an upcoming doctor’s appointment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 118(20), 10–12. https://doi.org/10.1073/PNAS.2101165118 Nagel, S. (2000). Creativity and policy studies. The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal, 5(3), 1–16. Narayanan, A., Mathur, A., Chetty, M., & Kshirsagar, M. (2020). Dark patterns: Past, present, and future. Queue, 18(2), 67–92. https://doi.org/10.1145/3400899.3400901 National Crime Records Bureau. (2022). Accidental deaths and suicides in India—2021. https:// ncrb.gov.in/accidental-­deaths-­suicides-­india-­adsi

196

H. Kapoor and A. Tagat

Nys, T.  R. V., & Engelen, B. (2017). Judging nudging: Answering the manipulation objection. Political Studies, 65(1), 199–214. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032321716629487 O’Brian, D. (Writer), Parsons, O. (Writer), Redd, C. (Writer), & Pennolino, P. (Director). (2023, March 19). Timeshares (Season 10, Episode 5) [TV series episode]. In T. Carvell, J. Taylor, J. Oliver, L. Stanton, J. Thoday (Executive Producers), Last Week Tonight. Home Box Office. Ohm, P. (2019). Manipulation, dark patterns, and evil nudges. Jotwell, 1–2. https://cyber.jotwell. com/manipulation-­dark-­patterns-­and-­evil-­nudges/ Petticrew, M., Maani, N., Pettigrew, L., Rutter, H., & Van Schalkwyk, M.  C. (2020). Dark nudges and sludge in big alcohol: Behavioral economics, cognitive biases, and alcohol industry Corporate Social Responsibility. Milbank Quarterly, 98(4), 1290–1328. https://doi. org/10.1111/1468-­0009.12475 Schaffner, B., Lingareddy, N. A., & Chetty, M. (2022). Understanding account deletion and relevant dark patterns on social media. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 6(CSCW2). https://doi.org/10.1145/3555142 Shahab, S., & Lades, L.  K. (2021). Sludge and transaction costs. Behavioural Public Policy. https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2021.12 Soman, D. (2020). Sludge: A very short introduction. Soman, D., & Yeung, C. (2021). The behaviorally informed organization. Rotman-UTP Publishing. https://utorontopress.com/9781487507893/the-­behaviorally-­informed-­organization Sternberg, R. J. (1998). A balance theory of wisdom. Review of General Psychology, 2(4), 347–365. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-­2680.2.4.347 Sternberg, R.  J. (2021). Transformational creativity: The link between creativity, wisdom, and the solution of global problems. Philosophies, 6(3). https://doi.org/10.3390/ PHILOSOPHIES6030075 Sunstein, C.  R. (2022). Sludge audits. Behavioural Public Policy, 6(4), 654–673. https://doi. org/10.1017/bpp.2019.32 Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. Yale University Press. van de Sand, F., Frison, A.-K., Zotz, P., Riener, A., & Holl, K. (2020). The intersection of User Experience (UX), Customer Experience (CX), and Brand Experience (BX). In F. van de Sand, A.-K. Frison, P. Zotz, A. Riener, & K. Holl (Eds.), User experience is brand experience: The psychology behind successful digital products and services (pp. 71–93). Springer. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-­3-­030-­29868-­5_5 WARC. (2016). Behavioural science gets creative. WARC. https://www.warc.com/newsandopinion/ news/behavioural-­science-­gets-­creative/en-­gb/36080 Zagal, J. P., Björk, S., & Lewis, C. (2013). Dark patterns in the design of games. Foundations of Digital Games 2013. https://www.diva-­portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1043332/FULLTEXT01.pdf

Chapter 14

How to Transform Teaching for Creativity Programs to Teaching for Transformational Creativity Sareh Karami

Creativity and Creativity Trainings Creativity is commonly defined as the generation of original and valuable ideas within a specific setting (Plucker et al., 2004; Runco & Jaeger, 2012). Creativity and innovation have been emphasized as essential skills for the twenty-first century. In fact, the World Economic Forum reported that creativity was one of the most in-demand skills last year (World Economic Forum, 2022). This demand is primarily due to societal, economic, and technological changes, which demand the ability to adapt and keep up with the advancements and challenges (SaidMetwaly et al., 2021). Creativity Training programs are nothing new, dating back at least to as early as 1937, when a program aimed at developing creative engineers was deployed at General Electric (Shavinina, 2013). Over the years, numerous trainings have been designed to encourage creativity. By 1972, Torrance found 142 studies that examined the effectiveness of a form of Creative Training. He summarized the results of 142 studies and found that 72% of the trainings were successful. Such programs have increased in popularity since Torrance’s 1972 study, showing that there is a longstanding and strong tradition of using Creativity Training programs for individuals. Creativity Training can be defined as instructions to develop an individual’s capability to generate novel and potentially useful solutions to (often complex and ill-defined) problems (Scott et al., 2004a). To this day, hundreds, if not thousands, of approaches have been proposed for Creativity Training. Subsequently, there have been multiple attempts to evaluate the effectiveness of Creativity Trainings after Torrance’s initial attempt (e.g., Rose & Lin [1984]; (effect size = 0.468); Scott et al. S. Karami (*) Mississippi State University, Starkville, MS, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2024 R. J. Sternberg, S. Karami (eds.), Transformational Creativity, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-51590-3_14

197

198

S. Karami

[2004a]; (effect size = 0.68); Swanson & Hoskyn [1998]; (effect size = 0.70); Scott et al. [2004b]; (effect size = 0.78); and Ma [2009]; (effect size = 0.77)). The most important conclusion resulting from these different studies is that Creativity Training can, in fact, work. However, Creativity Trainings come in many forms. These Trainings use different approaches and frameworks to understand creativity, including (a) cognitive approaches, (b) personality approaches, (c) motivational approaches, and (d) social-interactional approaches (Bull et al., 1995). One of the most extensive reviews of Creativity Training programs was conducted by Scott et al. (2004a), who suggested that the cognitive approach was the most consistently effective. However, cognitive Creativity Training programs also vary concerning the number and nature of (a) the processes targeted for development, (b) the training techniques used to develop the processing skills, (c) the media used to deliver training, and (d) the kind of practice exercises embedded in the instructional program (Scott et al., 2004b). They also differ in terms of domain-specificity/generality. On the one hand, many Creativity Training programs aim to enhance creativity across a range of domains. These trainings require minor adjustments for different domains and populations (Basadur, 1997). On the other hand, there are domain-specific techniques and models that are designed for a particular population based on the given performance domain. In their review of Creative Training programs, Scott et al. (2004a) found that the highly organized and systematic programs that involved substantial periods of structured, focused practices (relevant to a field or domain) were most effective. More specifically, Scott and colleagues found that training that emphasizes idea generation, problem finding, and conceptual combination (based on realistic examples) had the strongest influence on effective Creativity Training. These programs used realistic exercises that were relevant and appropriate to the specific field or subject being addressed. They suggested that training materials should be challenging, include real-world, domain-specific activities, and discuss well-researched cognitive models of creativity. Training should involve some lecture-based components along with multiple opportunities for practice by trainees. Although such training programs tend to be lengthy, we need to realize that lengthy training programs have been found to be more effective in fostering creativity (Scott et al., 2004a). Below I discussed two examples of the cognitive approach to Creativity Training: divergent thinking and problem-solving. Both approaches are popular and can be effective in promoting creativity.

Divergent Thinking Training Divergent thinking is one of the most well-studied aspects of creativity. In the 1950s, J. P. Guildford and his colleagues defined divergent thinking as an individual’s capacity to generate multiple alternative solutions as opposed to one correct solution. Some of these solutions are conventional, and some are original. Because

14  How to Transform Teaching for Creativity Programs to Teaching…

199

some resulting ideas are original, divergent thinking represents the potential for creative thinking and problem-solving. Divergent thinking is not the same as creative thinking, but originality is undoubtedly the most commonly recognized facet of creativity (Runco & Acar, 2012). And while there has been an ongoing discussion among researchers regarding the importance and adequacy of divergent thinking for creativity, one thing that is evident is that divergent thinking is a capacity that contributes to many forms of creativity (Bachelor & Michael, 1991, 1997; Mumford et al., 1998; Plucker & Renzulli, 1999; Sternberg & O’Hara, 1999; Vincent et al., 2002; Kim, 2011; Runco & Acar, 2012). Divergent thinking training programs focus on expanding individuals’ fluency (number of responses), flexibility (category shifts in responses), originality (uniqueness of response), and elaboration (refinement of responses). These programs encourage participants to think beyond conventional boundaries, explore multiple perspectives, and produce numerous alternative solutions. Techniques such as brainstorming, mind mapping, and random word association are commonly used in divergent thinking training programs. Smith (1998) found 172 techniques or instructional methods that have been used to develop divergent thinking skills at one time or another. One of the well-known divergent thinking training programs is the Purdue Creative Thinking program. This training intervention was designed by Feldhusen and colleagues in the early 1970s and consisted of 28 lessons on audio tape. Trainees listen to 30-minute instructional sessions and work through a series of exercises for each session (Feldhusen et  al., 1970). These instructional sessions present a key principle for enhancing fluency, flexibility, originality, and elaboration (3–4 min), followed by illustrations of this principle (8–10 min through stories about historical figures). The training aims to enhance the fluency, flexibility, originality, and elaboration of trainees’ responses during creative thought. Studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of divergent thinking training in enhancing creativity. For example, a study by Kim (2008) found that participants who underwent divergent thinking training exhibited higher fluency, flexibility, and originality levels in idea-generation tasks compared to a control group. These findings highlight the potential of this training approach in promoting innovative thinking. While fostering divergent thinking has generally shown positive effects on stimulating creativity, mixed findings were reported regarding the training outcomes (Nickerson, 1999; Ritter & Mostert, 2017). First, although the ability to think divergently is found to be an important indicator of creativity, creativity has two critical elements to its definition: divergent thinking and convergent thinking. Divergent thinking enables the production of novel ideas, while convergent thinking—evaluating and selecting ideas—supports the convergence of those into appropriate outputs (Clapham, 1997; Smith et al., 1995; Ward et al., 1997). Second, divergent thinking training often overlooks the significance of domain-­ specific knowledge and context. Sun et al. (2020) found that students with higher relevant domain knowledge benefited more from divergent thinking training. Their finding shows the need for integrating domain knowledge acquisition in divergent thinking training programs. Creativity Training should be based on general

200

S. Karami

domain-independent concepts that are demonstrated in a domain-relevant context (Baer, 1996).

Creative Problem-Solving Training Rather than emphasizing one process, such as divergent thinking, Creative Problem-­ Solving Training programs focus on equipping individuals with systematic approaches to address complex problems and generate novel solutions. Problem-­ solving is the act of resolving a complex, ill-defined problem using new ideas developed using multiple pieces of information and expertise. A complete program of Creative Problem-Solving needs to include (a) problem finding, (b) information gathering, (c) concept search and selection, (d) conceptual combination, (e) idea generation, (f) idea evaluation, (g) implementation planning, and (h) action monitoring (Mumford et al., 1991; Mumford et al., 1999). The Creative Problem-Solving (CPS) program was initially developed by Osborn (1963) and later modified by many other researchers (e.g., Bear, 1993; Isaksen et al., 1994, 2000; Parnes, 1988; Parnes et al., 1977; Torrance et al., 1978). A good example of Creative Problem-Solving Training programs is the Osborn-Parnes Creative Problem-Solving program, developed by Sidney Parnes and colleagues during the 1970s. In this program, trainees attend a course (lectures along with discussion) where they learn about six stages of Creative Problem-Solving, including mess finding, problem finding, information finding, idea finding, solution finding, and acceptance finding. Trainees then complete a set of exercises to practice the techniques they learned during training. The current version of CPS, called the Thinking Skills Model (Puccio et al., 2011), features seven steps (i.e., Assessing the Situation, Exploring the Vision, Formulating the Challenges, Exploring Ideas, Formulating Solutions, Exploring Acceptance, and Formulating a Plan). While each step involves specific cognitive and affective skills, all steps feature a balance between divergent thinking and convergent thinking. Research supports the efficacy of Creative Problem-Solving Training in improving problem-solving skills. Creative Problem-Solving (CPS) has been successfully used in a wide range of Creative Problem-Solving Training programs to train participants in cognitive strategies that significantly enhance creative performance (Basadur et  al., 1982; Parnes & Meadow, 1960; Parnes & Noller, 1972; Puccio et al., 2006, 2020)—in their meta-analytic review of Creativity Training programs Scott et al. (2004a) concluded that CPS was one of the most effective models for teaching creative thinking.

14  How to Transform Teaching for Creativity Programs to Teaching…

201

Creativity Is not Enough The common definition of creativity predominantly focuses on the favorable aspects of creativity and assumes its social positivity. Creativity has been identified as being of great importance for economic and technical development, academic success, healthy psychological functioning, and emotional growth (Plucker et  al., 2004). However, in a series of studies, Gino and Ariely (2012) found that creativity increases unethical behavior by making people more cognitively flexible. They showed that creativity is associated with justifying immoral actions by generating reasons for their appropriateness in a particular situation. Gino and Ariely (2012) demonstrated that creative people behaved more dishonestly and that the ability to successfully generate options to justify their immoral actions mediated the degree of dishonesty. This is not surprising, as individuals have historically employed their creative abilities in negative ways across various domains, including leadership, business (e.g., the 2008 Global Financial Crisis), advertising (e.g., promoting unhealthy or hazardous products), entertainment (e.g., the production of explicit content), science, and technology (e.g., manufacturing biological weapons). These findings highlight a potential dark side of creativity and raise the question as to whether creativity should be promoted, without reservation, in students, as it may have undesired effects on students’ ethical behavior. However, without creativity, progress would come to a standstill very quickly. Creativity will be the key to navigating through this ever-changing world in decades to come. And it will remain an important twenty-first-century skill that needs to be facilitated in educational policy and practice. To address such concerns, we need to pay special attention to the directional issues of creativity—negative versus positive—instead of solely addressing the definitional issues of creativity—usefulness and novelty (Sternberg & Karami, 2022). That is why Sternberg (2021) introduced the concept of Transformational Creativity.

Transformational Creativity Malevolent creativity is defined as creativity that is deliberately planned to damage others (Cropley et  al., 2014). Although it might seem that malevolent creativity would be exclusive to criminals and terrorists, studies have shown that everyone might have the potential to demonstrate malevolent creativity (Jia et  al., 2020). Sternberg and Lubart (2023) have suggested that, given the alarming spread of malevolent creativity, theories of creativity no longer seem adequate. They suggested that people must consider creativity’s positivity and integrity to understand and promote it. Sternberg (2021) proposed the concept of Transformational Creativity as a concept that meets the needs of today’s world. Transformational Creativity is the production of novel and useful ideas and products that make the world a better place, over the long term as well as the short term. Transformational

202

S. Karami

Creativity combines creativity with wisdom—seeking a common good by balancing the interests of all affected parties over the long term as well as the short term, in a way that reflects positive ethical values (Sternberg & Karami, 2022). Both organizations and educational institutions have invested substantial time and resources in developing and deploying Creativity Training programs. However, in the rapidly evolving landscape of technological advancements, simply training for creativity does not necessarily seem like a good idea anymore. Something important is missing from Creativity Training programs. Creativity driven by malicious purposes may cause great harm to individuals and society. We should simultaneously foster individuals’ creativity combined with wisdom. In the following section, I offer suggestions to promote positive creativity. Some of these suggestions/strategies can be easily included in existing Creativity Training programs.

Promoting Transformational Creativity Including Lectures on Wisdom Scott et  al. (2004a) suggested that Creativity Training programs should involve some lecture-based components along with multiple opportunities for practice by trainees. In fact, many of the popular training programs have lectures that overview the theoretical framework on which the training is based (see examples above). Training programs can include lectures on wisdom, balancing interests, and long-­ term and short-term consequences of ideas. These lectures could also use small group discussions and Socratic seminars on various decision-making issues regarding innovations (Sternberg & Chowkase, 2021).

Case Studies In their review, Scott et  al. (2004a) also found that effective training materials should be challenging and include real-world, domain-specific exercises. Educators can also foster Transformational Creativity by introducing case studies and role models. Incorporating case studies of both positive and malevolent creativity can help students/trainees understand the complexities and challenges associated with the creative thinking process in the real world. There are various examples of malevolent creativity in every domain. A very concerning, familiar example is cybercrimes that have massive economic and social impacts on governments, businesses, and individuals worldwide. The global losses from cybercrime topped $8.15 Trillion in 2023 and are expected to skyrocket to more than $10.29 trillion in 2025. Cybersecurity budgeting has become a high

14  How to Transform Teaching for Creativity Programs to Teaching…

203

priority for most countries. Governments must invest vast amounts of money to secure their nations from cyber-related threats. For example, the White House allocated $17.4 billion to support the protection of information and information systems in the 2022 budget request. Instead, such money could have been invested in economic recovery, education, and healthcare. It is important to remind students/trainees that almost everyone is likely to have engaged in malevolent creativity at some time and that it is not exclusive to criminals and terrorists (Jia et al., 2020). (Auto)biographies of great innovators or activists can be used in Creative Training programs, as they show that wisdom and innovation are highly related (Shavinina, 2013). Some innovators have highly developed wisdom-related skills (Branson, 2002; Dell, 1999; Grove, 1996; Lowenstein, 1996; Morita, 1987). For example, Shavinina and Medvid (2009) analyzed the wisdom-based performance of Richard Branson, a famous innovator and entrepreneur. This and similar cases (e.g., young climate activists’ videos in UNICEF for every child, the life of Malala Yousafzi, the business philosophy of Mary Kay, and the entrepreneurial approach of Anita Roddick), as well as practical techniques aimed at developing wisdom-related abilities, should be included in Creativity Training programs.

Integrating Care and Ethics into Creativity Training Programs Both creativity and ethical decision-making have been identified as twenty-first-­ century skills. I suggest that Creativity Training programs can integrate care and ethics into their programs. Design thinking is an example of practicing empathy and balancing multiple interests while solving a problem. Design thinking is an innovative problem-solving process. Design thinking comprises a variety of creative strategies for stewarding projects with various stakeholders or fostering organizational innovation (Panke, 2019). The Hasso Plattner Institute of Design at Stanford University, or “d.school,” delineates design thinking into five modes: empathize, define, ideate, prototype, and test. Design thinking has a human-centered core. It’s about the person behind the problem and solution and requires asking questions such as “Who will be using this product?” and “How will this solution impact the user?” There are different design thinking workshops, courses, and training programs (e.g., The IDEO U Learning, Harvard Business School, Stanford D.school, and Stanford k–12 D-lab), and all of these programs help their trainees/students to gain techniques to understand the social, emotional, and physical needs of their clients better. The fundamental principle of design thinking involves placing participants into contexts that make them think and work like expert designers to foster their civic literacy, empathy, cultural awareness, and risk taking (Sharples et al., 2016). Research has shown that design thinking contributes to tacit experiences, increased empathy, reduced cognitive bias, playful learning, flow, collaboration, productive failure, surprising solutions, and creative confidence (Panke, 2019). However, the client may have immoral ends and designers deal with ethical paradoxes all the time (Whitbeck, 2011). That’s why

204

S. Karami

Hamington (2019) suggested “Caring Design” education. Caring Design is an integration of Care Ethics and Design Thinking. “Care ethics” is a relational approach to morality characterized by a concern for context, empathy, and action (Hamington, 2019). Another interesting example of a domain-specific Creative Training program that includes ethical decision-making is AI + Ethics Education. Ali et  al. (2019) have developed K–8th grade curricula designed to enable children to understand AI, learn about ethics, and think creatively. Another example is Freeman et al.’s (2022) classes, in which they suggest a way of teaching business ethics using the creative arts, especially literature, and theater (for more information, see Ali et al., 2019).

Perspective Learning Practices Discussing perspective learning theories in the lectures and including perspective-­ taking exercises in Creativity Training programs could promote not only Creativity, but also Transformational Creativity. Perspective-taking has been defined as the willingness and ability to take and understand another person’s feelings and thoughts (Davis, 1983). First, research has shown that perspective-taking can directly enhance creativity by providing access to new ideas (Galinsky et al., 2008) and increasing ideas’ usefulness (Grant & Berry, 2011). Doron (2017) showed that perspective-­ taking intervention programs could enhance creative thinking and divergent thinking abilities. Besides, one of the most important skills people need to be Transformationally Creative is balancing interpersonal, intrapersonal, and extrapersonal interests (Sternberg, 2021). Perspective-taking can encourage individuals to imagine the suffering of a disadvantaged or stigmatized outgroup member (Batson et al., 2007). Examining issues from multiple perspectives is one of the significant practices for informed decision-making. One effective strategy to foster perspective-­ taking skills is engaging children in activities that encourage them to understand and empathize with other people’s points of view. There are training programs and workshops that use Edward De Bono’s book Six Thinking Hats as a basis to promote creative thinking in schools and organizations (1985). However, some researchers and scholars have used it as a perspective-­ thinking intervention. Six Thinking Hats is a technique developed by Edward De Bono that encourages individuals to approach problem-solving and decision-­making from different perspectives. Each “hat” represents a unique function and role. Each thinking role is identified with a colored symbolic thinking hat. The White Hat focuses on objective information and facts, the Red Hat represents emotions and intuition, the Black Hat emphasizes risk management and potential problems, the Yellow Hat promotes optimism and positive thinking, the Green Hat encourages creative and innovative ideas, and the Blue Hat serves as the facilitator, ensuring productive discussions and guiding the thinking process. By adopting different thinking hats, individuals can explore a variety of viewpoints, consider different aspects of a situation, and make more well-rounded decisions. According to De

14  How to Transform Teaching for Creativity Programs to Teaching…

205

Bono (1999), the primary theoretical reasons to use the Six Thinking Hats are to (a) encourage parallel thinking, (b) encourage full-spectrum thinking, and (c) separate ego from performance. The wearing of different colored hats enables the wearer to bring a different perspective to thinking critically about an issue and to find alternative solutions to any problem (Kivunja, 2015). Manesis et al. (2022) used De Bono’s Six Thinking Hats technique to approach the issue of bullying at school. Another example of perspective-taking training is the four-step perspective-­ taking, created by Amy Lou Abernethy, which combines the steps of human-­ centered design thinking with the act of perspective-taking. This technique focuses on four steps in the process: (a) seek understanding, (b) ideate, (c) hypothesize, and (d) observe and adjust. Her workshops focus on the power of perspective-taking to improve interpersonal relationships, workplace dynamics, and societies (Amp Creative, n.d.).

Integrating Community Service Learning in CT Community Service Learning is an educational approach that integrates community service with academic learning, providing students with opportunities to apply their knowledge and skills in real-world settings while addressing community needs (Bringle & Hatcher, 1996). Involving trainees/students in a community service project after learning about Creativity and Creative Problem-Solving could promote Transformational Creativity (Desmet & Roberts, 2022). Community Service Learning emphasizes active engagement, reflection, and reciprocity as students collaborate with community partners to identify, plan, and implement service projects that benefit the community (Eyler & Giles, 1999). Community Service Learning merges learning goals and community service to enrich student growth and the common good. Such projects are designed through collaboration between teachers/ faculty and community partners, including non-governmental organizations or government agencies. The projects require students to apply course content to community-­based activities. Service-learning pedagogy has been shown to result in improved perspective-taking (Cipolle, 2010) and empathy (Pierangeli & Lenhart, 2018). Community Service Learning is so popular in higher education that almost every university in the United States has a Community Service Learning center. However, it is not as common in K–12 settings. Purdue EPICS high school Service-­ learning and The Lemelson MIT InvenTeams program are two good examples of project-based programs for high school students (Purdue EPICS, n.d.). In Purdue EPICS high school Service-learning, students go into their community to solve real-world problems. The problem becomes the basis for a project. Students work in teams and partner with a not-for-profit organization. Partnerships are critical to the EPICS program. The community partners can serve as customers or mentors to the students (Purdue EPICS, n.d.). The Lemelson MIT InvenTeams program is situated within the School of Engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). This program is

206

S. Karami

based on a research grant aimed at encouraging high school students’ invention. The Lemelson MIT InvenTeams program awards $10,000 each year to teams of teachers and students in grades 9 to 12. Each grant recipient teacher and their team of students build a working prototype of a technological solution to a problem the student team identifies in their local community. Their work focuses on the expansion of opportunities for young people to learn ways inventors find and solve problems that matter (Lemelson MIT, n.d.). Integrating creative thinking trainings (e.g., lectures on Creative Problem-­ Solving and Creativity) with Community Service Learning is a great way to promote Transformational Creativity. As promoting Transformational Creativity should involve learning activities that cultivate perspective-taking, empathy, and compassion, as well as creative thinking skills (Desmet, 2024). In Community Service Learning, learners creatively solve the problems that are not theirs. Research has shown that Community Service Learning fosters qualities such as compassion, perspective-taking, social responsibility, and empathy.

Conclusion There is no doubt that Creativity is a core human skill in the twenty-first century. It is a skill that has been identified as being more and more sought after in workplaces (World Economic Forum, 2022). A World Economic Forum article (October 2020) identifies Creativity and Problem-Solving as the top skills for 2025. Similarly, Forbes listed creativity as a “future of work” skill vital for the future. The good news is that creativity is teachable, and there are hundreds, if not thousands, of techniques, training programs, and strategies to promote creativity. Besides, the efficacy of Creativity Trainings has been examined through different meta-analytical investigations and has been shown to be effective. The problem is that there are many ways that creativity can go wrong, and teaching for creativity in isolation does not cut it in the modern age. In this chapter, we suggested some practices that could be included in existing Creative Training programs to promote Transformational Creativity.

References 21st Century Skills Map. (2008). Creativity and innovation: English. Partnership for 21st Century Skills. Retrieved from https://www.p21.org/storage/documents/21st_century_skills_english_map.pdf Ali, S., Payne, B. H., Williams, R., Park, H. W., & Breazeal, C. (2019, June). Constructionism, ethics, and creativity: Developing primary and middle school artificial intelligence education. In International workshop on education in artificial intelligence k-12 (eduai’19) (Vol. 2, pp. 1–4). Amp Creative. (n.d.). Guide to perspective taking for the workplace. https://ampcreative.com/ guide-­to-­perspective-­taking/#Obstacles

14  How to Transform Teaching for Creativity Programs to Teaching…

207

Bachelor, P. A., & Michael, W. B. (1991). Higher order factors of creativity within Guilford’s structure of intellect model: A reanalysis of a 53 variable database. Creativity Research Journal, 4, 157–175. Bachelor, P. A., & Michael, W. B. (1997) The structure of intellect model revisited. In M. A. Runco (Ed.), Creativity research handbook: Volume I (pp. 155–182). Hampton. Baer, J. (1996). The effects of task-specific divergent-thinking training. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 30(3), 183–187. Basadur, M. (1997). Organizational development interventions for enhancing creativity in the work place. Journal of Creative Behavior, 31, 59–72. Basadur, M., Graen, G. B., & Green, S. G. (1982). Training in creative problem solving: Effects on ideation and problem finding and solving in an industrial research organization. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 30(1), 41–70. Batson, C. D., Eklund, J. H., Chermok, V. L., Hoyt, J. L., & Ortiz, B. G. (2007). An additional antecedent of empathic concern: Valuing the welfare of the person in need. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(1), 65. Bear, J. (1993). Creativity and divergent thinking: A task specific approach. Lawrence Erlbaum. Branson, R. (2002). Losing my virginity: The autobiography. Virgin Books. Bringle, R. G., & Hatcher, J. A. (1996). Implementing service learning in higher education. The Journal of Higher Education, 67(2), 221–239. Bull, K.  S., Montgomery, D., & Baloche, L. (1995). Teaching creativity at the college level: A synthesis of curricular components perceived as important by instructors. Creativity Research Journal, 8(1), 83–89. Cipolle, S.  B. (2010). Service-learning and social justice: Engaging students in social change. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Clapham, M. M. (1997). Ideational skills training: A key element in creativity training programs. Creativity Research Journal, 10(1), 33–44. Cropley, D.  H., Kaufman, J.  C., White, A.  E., & Chiera, B.  A. (2014). Layperson perceptions of malevolent creativity: The good, the bad, and the ambiguous. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8(4), 400. Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1), 113. De Bono, E. (1985). The CoRT thinking program. Thinking and Learning Skills, 1, 363–378. De Bono, E. (1999). New thinking for the new millennium. McQuaig Group Inc.. Dell, M. (1999). Direct from dell. Harper Business. Desmet, O.  (2024). Nurturing changemakers: Harnessing the power of service learning pedagogy for transformational creativity. In R. S. Sternberg & S. Karami (Eds.), Transformational Creativity. Springer. Desmet, O.  A., & Roberts, A.  M. (2022). Teaching for positive and transformational creativity through service learning. Education Sciences, 12(4), 234. Doron, E. (2017). Fostering creativity in school aged children through perspective taking and visual media based short term intervention program. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 23, 150–160. European Commission. (2011). Europe 2020 Flagship Initiative Innovation Union. Directorate-­ General for Research and Innovation, European Commission. Eyler, J., & Giles, D. E., Jr. (1999). Where’s the learning in service-learning? Jossey-Bass higher and adult education series. Jossey-Bass, Inc. Feldhusen, J. F., Treffinger, D. J., & Bahlke, S. J. (1970). Developing creative thinking: The Purdue creativity program. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 4(2), 85–90. Freeman, R. E., Dunham, L., Fairchild, G., & Parmar, B. L. (2022). Leveraging the creative arts in business ethics teaching. In Humanizing business: What humanities can say to business (pp. 355–370). Springer International Publishing. Galinsky, A. D., Maddux, W. W., Gilin, D., & White, J. B. (2008). Why it pays to get inside the head of your opponent: The differential effects of perspective taking and empathy in negotiations. Psychological Science, 19(4), 378–384.

208

S. Karami

Gino, F., & Ariely, D. (2012). The dark side of creativity: Original thinkers can be more dishonest. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(3), 445. Grant, A. M., & Berry, J. W. (2011). The necessity of others is the mother of invention: Intrinsic and prosocial motivations, perspective taking, and creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 54(1), 73–96. Grove, A. (1996). Only the Paranoid Survive. Doubleday. Hamington, M. (2019). Integrating care ethics and design thinking. Journal of Business Ethics, 155(1), 91–103. Isaksen, S.  G., De Schryver, L., Dorval, K.  B., McCluskey, K.  W., Treffinger, D.  J., & (eds.). (2000). Facilitative leadership: Making a difference with creative problem solving. Creative Problem Solving Group. Isaksen, S. G., Dorval, K. B., & Treffinger, D. J. (1994). Creative approach to problem solving. Kendall-Hunt. Jia, X., Wang, Q., & Lin, L. (2020). The relationship between childhood neglect and malevolent creativity: The mediating effect of the dark triad personality. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 613695. Kim, K. H. (2008). Meta-analyses of the relationship of creative achievement to both IQ and divergent thinking test scores. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 42(2), 106–130. Kim, K. H. (2011). The creativity crisis: The decrease in creative thinking scores on the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 23(4), 285–295. Kivunja, C. (2015). Using De Bono’s six thinking hats model to teach critical thinking and problem solving skills essential for success in the 21st century economy. Creative Education, 6(03), 380. Lemelson MIT. (n.d.). Forging the pathway to invention Education. https://lemelson.mit.edu/ forging-­pathway-­invention-­education Lowenstein, R. (1996). Buffett. Main Street Books. Ma, H. H. (2009). The effect size of variables associated with creativity: A meta-analysis. Creativity Research Journal, 21(1), 30–42. Manesis, N., Chatzidaki, N., & Gialamas, M. (2022). Applying De Bono’s six thinking hats for an anti-bullying program. Journal of Education and Learning (EduLearn), 16(4), 440–447. Morita, A. (1987). Made in Japan. Collins. Mumford, M. D., Marks, M. A., Connelly, M. S., Zaccaro, S. J., & Johnson, J. F. (1998). Domain-­ based scoring in divergent-thinking tests: Validation evidence in an occupational sample. Creativity Research Journal, 11(2), 151–163. Mumford, M.  D., Mobley, M.  I., Reiter-Palmon, R., Uhlman, C.  E., & Doares, L.  M. (1991). Process analytic models of creative capacities. Creativity Research Journal, 4(2), 91–122. Mumford, M. D., Peterson, N. G., & Childs, R. A. (1999). Basic and cross-functional skills. In N. G. Peterson, M. D. Mumford, W. C. Borman, P. R. Jeanneret, & E. A. Fleishman (Eds.), An occupational information system for the 21st century: The development of O*NET (pp. 49–69). American Psychological Association. Nickerson, R.  S. (1999). Enhancing creativity. In R.  J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 392–430). Cambridge University Press. OECD. (2014). OECD science, technology and industry outlook 2014. Author. Osborn, A. F. (1953). Applied imagination: Principles and procedures of creative problem-solving. Scribner. Osborn, A. F. (1963). Applied imagination. Scribner. Panke, S. (2019). Design thinking in education: Perspectives, opportunities and challenges. Open Education Studies, 1(1), 281–306. Parnes, S. J. (1988). Visioning. DOK. Parnes, S. J., & Meadow, A. (1960). Evaluation of persistence of effects produced by a creative problem-solving course. Psychological Reports, 7(2), 357–361. Parnes, S. J., & Noller, R. B. (1972). Applied creativity: The creative studies project: II. Results of the two-year program. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 6(3), 164–186.

14  How to Transform Teaching for Creativity Programs to Teaching…

209

Parnes, S. J., Noller, R. B., & Biondi, A. M. (1977). Guide to creative action. Scribner’s. Pierangeli, L.  T., & Lenhart, C.  M. (2018). Service-learning: Promoting empathy through the point-in-time count of homeless populations. Journal of Nursing Education, 57(7), 436–439. Plucker, J.  A., Beghetto, R.  A., & Dow, G.  T. (2004). Why isn’t creativity more important to educational psychologists? Potentials, pitfalls, and future directions in creativity research. Educational Psychologist, 39(2), 83–96. Plucker, J. A., & Renzulli, J. S. (1999). Psychometric approaches to the study of human creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 35–61). Cambridge University Press. Puccio, G. J., Burnett, C., Acar, S., Yudess, J. A., Holinger, M., & Cabra, J. F. (2020). Creative problem solving in small groups: The effects of creativity training on idea generation, solution creativity, and leadership effectiveness. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 54(2), 453–471. Puccio, G. J., Firestien, R. L., Coyle, C., & Masucci, C. (2006). A review of the effectiveness of CPS training: A focus on workplace issues. Creativity and Innovation Management, 15(1), 19–33. Puccio, G. J., Mance, M., & Murdock, M. C. (2011). Creative leadership: Skills that drive change (2nd ed.). Sage Publications. Purdue EPICS. (n.d.). History, mission, & vision. https://engineering.purdue.edu/EPICS/k12/ epics-­k12/history Ritter, S. M., & Mostert, N. (2017). Enhancement of creative thinking skills using a cognitive-­ based creativity training. Journal of Cognitive Enhancement, 1, 243–253. Rose, L. H., & Lin, H. T. (1984). A meta-analysis of long-term creativity training programs. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 18, 11–22. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-­6057.1984.tb00985.x Runco, M. A., & Acar, S. (2012). Divergent thinking as an indicator of creative potential. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 66–75. Runco, M. A., & Jaeger, G. J. (2012). The standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 92–96. Said-Metwaly, S., Fernández-Castilla, B., Kyndt, E., Van den Noortgate, W., & Barbot, B. (2021). Does the fourth-grade slump in creativity actually exist? A meta-analysis of the development of divergent thinking in school-age children and adolescents. Educational Psychology Review, 33, 275–298. Scott, G.  M., Leritz, L.  E., & Mumford, M.  D. (2004a). The effectiveness of creativity training: A meta-analysis. Creativity Research Journal, 16, 361–388. https://doi. org/10.1080/10400410409534549 Scott, G. M., Leritz, L. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2004b). Types of creativity training: Approaches and their effectiveness. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 38, 149–179. https://doi. org/10.1002/j.2162-­6057.2004.tb01238.x Sharples, M., de Roock, R., Ferguson, R., Gaved, M., Herodotou, C., Koh, E., Kukulska-Hulme, A., Looi, C.-K., McAndrew, P., Rienties, B., Weller, M., & Wong, L. H. (2016). Innovating pedagogy 2016: Open university innovation report 5. The Open University. Shavinina, L. (2013). How to develop innovators? Innovation education for the gifted. Gifted Education International, 29(1), 54–68. Shavinina, L., & Medvid, M. (2009). Understanding managerial talent. In L.  Shavinina (Ed.), International handbook on giftedness (pp. 839–851). Springer. Shavinina, L.  V. (2013b). The Routledge international handbook of innovation education. Routledge. Smith, G.  F. (1998). Idea generation techniques: A formulary of active ingredients. Journal of Creative Behavior, 32, 107–134. Smith, S.  M., Ward, T.  B., & Finke, R.  A. (1995). Cognitive processes in creative contexts (pp. 1–7). The MIT Press. Sternberg, R. J. (2021). Transformational creativity: The link between creativity, wisdom, and the solution of global problems. Philosophies, 6(3), 75. Sternberg, R. J., & Chowkase, A. (2021). When we teach for positive creativity, what exactly do we teach for? Education Sciences, 11(5), 237.

210

S. Karami

Sternberg, R. J., & Karami, S. (2022). An 8P theoretical framework for understanding creativity and theories of creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 56(1), 55–78. Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. (2023). Beyond defiance: An augmented investment perspective on creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 57(1), 127–137. Sternberg, R.  J., & O’Hara, L.  A. (1999). Creativity and intelligence. In R.  J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 251–273). Cambridge University Press. Sun, M., Wang, M., & Wegerif, R. (2020). Effects of divergent thinking training on students’ scientific creativity: The impact of individual creative potential and domain knowledge. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 37, 100682. Swanson, H. L., & Hoskyn, M. (1998). Experimental intervention research on students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of treatment outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 68, 277–321. Torrance, E. P. (1972). Can we teach children to think creatively? Journal of Creative Behavior, 6, 114–143. Torrance, E. P., Torrance, J. P., Willams, S. J., Horng, R. Y., & Crable, A. B. (1978). Handbook for training future problem solving teams. Future Problem Solving Bowl. Vincent, A.  S., Decker, B.  P., & Mumford, M.  D. (2002). Divergent thinking, intelligence, and expertise: A test of alternative models. Creativity Research Journal, 14(2), 163–178. Ward, T. B., Smith, S. M., & Vaid, J. E. (1997). Creative thought: An investigation of conceptual structures and processes (pp. xv–567). American Psychological Association. Whitbeck, C. (2011). Ethics in engineering practice and research. Cambridge University Press. World Economic Forum. (2022, October). The Future of Jobs Report 2020, World Economic Forum, Geneva.

Chapter 15

Social Innovation: Creativity in the Transformation of Day-to-Day Life Michael D. Mumford and Tanner R. Newbold

Creativity, the production of high quality, original, and elegant solutions (Christiaans, 2002) to complex, novel, and ill-defined or poorly structured problems (Mumford & Gustafson, 2007), provides the basis for formulating the innovations that transform our lives. Although we tend to see innovations as a purely technical issue, consider just a few of the socio-technical innovations that have emerged in recent years—we meet on Zoom or Microsoft Teams, we plant trees to reduce global warming, and we build “mini-houses” to house the homeless. All these and many other social innovations shape or change the nature of our day-to-day lives (Mumford & Moertl, 2003)—often, although not always (Logan et al., 2021), in a positive way. Despite the potential for negative social innovations, our present effort focuses on the social innovations that transform our world in a positive way—recognizing that what one person sees as a positive social innovation may not be viewed as positive by all. Nevertheless, it is these positive social innovations that often characterize transformational creativity, which refers to creative efforts that are oriented toward the common good and the beneficial transformation of society as a whole (Sternberg, 2021). Indeed, given positive social innovations may often lead to widespread enhancements to social systems through the emergence of new institutions, policies, and types of social interaction (Drazin et  al., 1999; Gryskiewicz, 2000; Mumford & Moertl, 2003), social innovation appears to represent a critical form of transformational creativity. The importance of positive social innovations to transformational creativity along with their significant and sizable impact on society (Mumford et al., 2019) points to the need to develop and educate people in such a way as to make positive social innovations more likely. Of course, there are many ways one might go about preparing people for social innovation. We might try to increase their sense of M. D. Mumford (*) · T. R. Newbold The University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2024 R. J. Sternberg, S. Karami (eds.), Transformational Creativity, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-51590-3_15

211

212

M. D. Mumford and T. R. Newbold

self-­efficacy (Ng & Lucianetti, 2016). We might try to provide information about significant social issues that need to be addressed (Arens et al., 2019). We might try to create new institutions intended to support social innovation such as volunteer programs (Trent et  al., 2019). Although all these efforts have value, to develop effective solutions to the social problems that often define transformational creativity, one needs to first think creatively (Mumford, 2002). Creative thinking is itself a complex phenomenon involving divergent thinking (Runco & Acar, 2019), creative problem-solving processes (Mumford & McIntosh, 2017), motivation (Hennessey, 2019), and the environmental context in which the creative work is occurring (Mumford & Fichtel, 2020). In attempts to develop people’s capacity for creative problem-solving, however, the knowledge and skills people bring to creative problems, including social innovation problems, seems of special significance, in part, because knowledge and skills can be developed in people (Mumford et al., 2013). Accordingly, in the present effort we will examine seven capacities, or skills, that appear critical in people’s success in solving social innovation problems: (1) expertise, (2) problem definition, (3) causal analysis, (4) forecasting, (5) constraint analysis, (6) planning, and (7) wisdom. We will begin by examining illustrations of how these capacities work in incidents of real-world social innovation. Then, we will examine the available empirical evidence demonstrating the impact of these skills in solving the social innovation problems that often characterize transformational creativity.

Expertise Case Illustration In our world, the buildings we live in and the communities we share around these buildings impact our day-to-day lives in many ways. Post World War II, the United States, like many other countries, faced a housing crisis, in part, due to the war and, in part, to the aftereffects of the Great Depression. The solution, at least to city planners, was the creation of large apartment buildings where these buildings were isolated from the broader community. Jane Jacobs resisted this trend, arguing for the preservation of livable communities (Jacobs, 1961). Indeed, modern architecture and urban planning, evident in examples like the Seaside community in Florida or Society Hill in Philadelphia (Rybczynski, 2007), grew out of a communitarian view of architecture advocated by Jacobs. Where did this “communitarian” innovation come from? One source of this innovation lies in Jacob’s work. She was a reporter for Architectural Forum, actively reporting on and criticizing “the modern architectural impulse”. And, her reporting provided the professional expertise needed to understand urban planning issues. Another source of this innovation lay in her day-to-day experience as an activist seeking to protect her New York West Village neighborhood from “redevelopment”

15  Social Innovation: Creativity in the Transformation of Day-to-Day Life

213

by Robert Moses (Caro, 1974). In technical terms, Jacob’s social innovation is tied to both conceptual and experiential knowledge—knowledge that is the basis for expertise (Mumford et al., 2018).

Study Findings So does conceptual (schematic) and experiential (case-based) knowledge contribute to social innovation? This question has been addressed in a study by Hunter et al. (2008). In this study, participants were asked to provide written solutions, or a written plan, for solving a social innovation problem, such as developing a course intended to prepare high school students for college. Judges appraised these written problem solutions for quality and originality. Prior to working on this task, however, a training manipulation including a set of independent, pre-task problems was used to prime the application of conceptual, and/or case-based, and/or associational knowledge in problem-solving. It was found the highest quality and most original problem solutions emerged when people employed a combination of conceptual and case-based knowledge. Thus, some empirical evidence is available for the role of expertise in social innovation. This finding is by no means unique (Vincent et al., 2002). For example, Mumford et al. (2012) asked participants, some 200 undergraduates, to develop a marketing campaign for a new line of extreme sports footwear. Participants were also asked to articulate their mental model for understanding this social innovation problem. Moreover, a background data, or life history, measure was used to assess exposure to and involvement in marketing issues—a measure of expertise. It was found this measure of expertise was positively related (B ≈ 0.22) to evaluations of solution quality, originality, and elegance. Moreover, expertise was found to be positively related to the strength of the mental models people used to understand this problem. Thus, expertise is not only a matter of performance in solving social innovation problems but also people’s ability to understand or make sense of the problem at hand. In another study along these lines, Zaccaro et al. (2000) assessed the expertise of some 1800 Army officers. Expertise was assessed through a task sort procedure. Here officers were presented with 78 leadership tasks and asked to group these tasks into categories. The similarity of each officer’s categories to those of the Army’s standard leadership model was used to appraise expertise. Officers were also asked to provide solutions to a set of middle management social dilemmas (Shorris, 1981) where innovation was required to solve these problems. Again, it was found that expertise was positively related (r ≈ 0.27) to the production of viable solutions to these social dilemma problems requiring innovative thinking to resolve the social dilemmas at hand. Taken as a whole, the findings obtained in these studies indicate expertise is indeed critical to transformational creativity as it influences the capacity to solve social innovation problems. Indeed, this relationship generalizes across both

214

M. D. Mumford and T. R. Newbold

approaches for assessing expertise (e.g., task sorts, life history measures) and the type of social innovation problems presented (e.g., managerial social dilemmas, marketing to new audiences, new instructional plans). Thus, it does seem reasonable to conclude that expertise is required to solve social innovation problems—a conclusion consistent with our observations about Jane Jacobs. This observation does, however, bring to fore a new question about what educational or career development experiences will prove especially valuable in providing people with the expertise needed to solve social innovation problems. Indeed, prior research on expertise acquisition (Ericsson et al., 2018) and critical career experiences (Mumford et al., 2000) provides some useful evidence in this regard.  However, further research focused on performance in solving social innovation problems is needed.

Problem Definition Case Illustration Few Americans, few people in the world, have demonstrated the creativity evident in the work of Walt Disney (Gabler, 2006)—the creator of Mickey Mouse, Snow White, and Fantasia to mention a few of his artistic triumphs. Disney, however, did not influence our world solely through film. He was also the originator of the Disney theme parks, both Disneyworld and Disneyland. And, these theme parks can be viewed as a significant social innovation and form of transformational creativity. They changed how people viewed fun parks. For parks, at least, Disney parks became an extended stay destination—an engaging and safe destination for families the world over. Where, however, did the idea for these parks come from? Gabler (2006) provides a rather detailed description of the origins of these parks. Disney had two daughters who, on Sundays, he would take to the old Griffin Park merry-go-round. He would spend hours with his daughters there but as one his daughters has said, all this time spent with his daughters in this old park led Disney to conclude, “[T]here’s nothing for the parents to do. You’ve got to have a place where the whole family can have fun” (Gabler, 2006, p. 484). With this observation, Disney had defined a problem. And, drawing from his own past life in Marceline, Kansas, his personal interest in railroads, and the successful merchandising of Disney products, a clearer definition of the problem emerged. “A small town would be built around the green with a railroad station at one end and a town hall at the other. A variety of little stores would surround the green where Disney merchandise would be sold. And there would be other sections too: an old farm, a western village, an Indian compound, and a carnival area with rides” (Gabler, 2006, p. 485). Although it took Disney some time and much work to make these parks “real”, and clearly some expertise was required, the basis for this social innovation lay in Disney’s definition of a noteworthy social innovation problem.

15  Social Innovation: Creativity in the Transformation of Day-to-Day Life

215

Study Findings The impact of problem definition on solving social innovation problems has been demonstrated in a study by Mumford et al. (1996). In this study, participants were asked to provide written solutions to two public policy problems and two managerial social innovation problems. In addition, participants were asked to provide written solutions to a marketing problem where they were asked to design advertising campaigns for a new product—the 3D Holographic television. The problem definition measure presented a brief description of four problems that could be defined in different ways. For each problem, participants were presented with 16 potential redefinitions and asked to select their preferred redefinitions. The redefinitions varied in quality and originality as well as various attributes of the redefinition statements, where participants’ responses were scaled to reflect eventual effectiveness of problem redefinitions. Correlations in the 0.30’s were obtained with respect to both the quality and originality of the advertising plans provided and the quality and originality of the solutions provided to the four social innovation problems. Thus, it appears problem definition skills, in fact, contribute to solving social innovation problems. In another study along these lines, Reiter-Palmon et al. (1997) presented undergraduates with six complex, novel, and ill-defined problems they might encounter in their day-to-day collegiate lives. Here problem definition skills were assessed using a different technique than the method employed by Mumford et al. (1996). In this study, participants were presented with two global life problems (e.g., mice in my basement) that could be defined in many different ways. The number of problem redefinitions provided, a fluency score, was used to assess skill in problem definition. Again, problem definition skill was found to be positively related to solving these day-to-day social innovation problems. These findings again are not unique (Reiter-Palmon & Robinson, 2009). They do, however, beg a question. What allows people to generate viable problem definitions? One answer to this question appears to lie in the time spent observing or thinking about exactly what might be the problem at hand (Getzels & Csikszentmihalyi, 1976). Another influence on the success of people’s problem definition performance may be found in their intrinsic engagement in the problem situation at hand (Reiter-Palmon et al., 1998). Still another influence on the success of people’s problem definition efforts may be found in the strategies used in problem definition. Thus, Mumford et  al. (1996) found those who provide especially successful solutions to social innovation problems define problems with respect to solution procedures and restrictions but not goals. These observations are noteworthy because they suggest encouraging people to set aside performance goals during problem definition might contribute to better performance. Along similar lines, instruction encouraging people to focus on the procedures to be used in problem-solving might improve problem definition skills. Reiter-Palmon and Robinson (2009), however, suggest a simpler and more direct strategy for improving people’s problem definition. Provide instruction that

216

M. D. Mumford and T. R. Newbold

encourages people to define real-life problems in a variety of ways—encourage generation of alternative definitions and provide people with feedback concerning the quality, originality, and elegance of these redefinitions. Although these observations are plausible, currently, we lack strong evidence bearing on the effectiveness of such interventions.

Causal Analysis Case Illustration It is one thing to define a social innovation problem; it is another thing to identify the causes of the problem. And, it is these causes people must act on if they are to solve the social innovation problems that characterize transformational creativity (Mumford, 2002). Typically, we do not think of bankers as people who solve social innovation problems—this, however, may not always be the case (Cohan, 2007). One banker who developed a significant set of social innovations was J. P. Morgan. Indeed, his solutions to these problems remain with us today not only in firms such as J. P. Morgan Chase and Morgan Stanley, which are major financial institutions, but also in the lives of the millions of people who work in a variety of large organizations. And, Morgan’s solutions to various social innovation problems lay in his analysis of a key economic issue confronting the United States in the mid- to late nineteenth century. In the mid- to late nineteenth century, investments in the United States both by Europeans and by Americans were largely tied to the building of railroads. The railroads, however, often were losing money for investors, resulting in investors becoming circumspect of the desirability of investing in American industry, especially railroads (Chernow, 1990). This was the problem confronting Morgan as the leader of one of the major banking institutions in the United States. Morgan’s analysis of the problem was counterintuitive. He saw the critical cause of the problem as unconstrained competition among the railroads. Identification of this critical cause led Morgan to engage in a long-term plan of railroad consolidation. Morgan, however, did not only address this central issue, he also systematically addressed a number of other intertwined causes (Strouse, 1999), including, to mention a few, control of the railroad executives’ egos (e.g., it’s my client’s money), poor firm management (e.g., control of corporate boards), and acquisition of key supporting technologies (e.g., formation of U.S. Steel). The success of this effort, an effort based on careful causal analysis, gave rise to the management structure of most major industrial organizations we see today—a structure that shapes the everyday lives of us all.

15  Social Innovation: Creativity in the Transformation of Day-to-Day Life

217

Study Findings In fact, there is rather strong evidence indicating causal analysis skills are important to solving social innovation problems. In one study along these lines, Marcy and Mumford (2007) asked some 180 undergraduates to provide written solutions to six social innovation problems—three drawn from the educational domain and three drawn from the business management domain. Examples include a unionization problem for business management and development of a voucher plan for primary education. Problem solutions were appraised by judges for quality and originality. Prior to working on these problems, however, participants were asked to work through a series of self-paced training exercises where they were provided with strategies for thinking about causes: (1) working with causes that can be manipulated, (2) working with causes that influence multiple outcomes, (3) working with causes that have large effects, (4) working with causes that can be controlled, (5) working with causes that have synergistic effects, (6) working with causes that work together, and (7) working with causes that have direct effects. The training of each strategy included a definition and an illustration as to how it might influence real-­ world problem solutions. Next, participants were asked to apply this strategy in solving a reasonably well-structured problem where feedback was provided. Finally, they were asked to apply this strategy in solving a more complex, open-ended problem. As compared to no-training conditions, it was found training in these causal analysis skills resulted in the production of more original and higher quality solutions when people were familiar with the problem domain (e.g., they had some expertise) and approached the problem objectively. In another study along these lines, Marcy and Mumford (2010) asked some 160 undergraduates to work on a computer simulation/gaming exercise. On this gaming exercise, participants were asked to assume the role of a university president seeking to raise campus educational quality—note, not other potential objectives of this gaming exercise such as improving finances or building better sports teams. Performance was assessed using objective game indicators of performance and, again, participants were or were not asked to complete the causal analysis training exercises developed by Marcy and Mumford (2007). It was found that training these causal analysis strategies resulted in better performance on this virtual “U” simulation exercise. In yet another study, Hester et  al. (2012) asked some 230 undergraduates to develop marketing plans for a new high energy root beer. These written plans were appraised by judges for quality, originality, and elegance. In addition, participants were asked to illustrate their mental models for understanding this marketing problem where judges appraised various attributes of the illustrated mental models—for example, the number of critical causes included or the overall coherence of the illustrated mental model. Prior to illustrating their mental model and providing their written solutions to the marketing problem, participants again were or were not asked to complete causal analysis training. It was found causal analysis training, at least for high ability participants, resulted in the production of stronger mental

218

M. D. Mumford and T. R. Newbold

models and the production of higher quality, more original, and more elegant solutions to this social innovation problem. All these studies are noteworthy not only because they demonstrate, on different tasks drawn from different domains, that causal analysis skills contribute to solving social innovation problems. They also provide a direct demonstration that causal analysis skills can be developed by training appropriate strategies. Of course, in the studies examined above, these interventions were short-term, global, non-domain specific interventions. Thus, there is some reason to expect longer, more in-depth instruction, especially if tied to interventions intended to encourage critical thinking (Behar-Horenstein & Niu, 2011), may prove of substantial value in enhancing people’s ability to solve social innovation problems.

Forecasting Case Illustration Few technical innovations in the twenty-first century have had as much impact on our lives as the personal computer and the internet—the basis for Facebook, Pay Pal, and Zoom to mention a few of the products and applications we use daily. Indeed, much of our day-to-day social interaction is mediated through these products and applications. One of the key people creating this socio-technical system was Bill Gates—the founder of Microsoft. And Gates as an individual exhibited exceptional forecasting skill. Indeed, he left Harvard as a sophomore based on the belief if he and Paul Allen did not start building software now, “it would happen without them” (Isaacson, 2014). The success of Microsoft as a firm always depended in part on Gates’ forecasting skill. Indeed, his yearly “reading retreats” provided the time, intellectual space, and knowledge needed for forecasting. After leading Microsoft and establishing his foundation, his extensive forecasting provided the basis for his foundation’s key activities. Perhaps just as centrally, his forecasting was no longer just to technical issues but also to socio-technical issues. For example, Gates, in the early 2010s, accurately forecast the likely emergence of a new pandemic. Indeed, he laid out many of the impacts and key mitigation steps the Center for Disease Control would later consider in their attempts to manage COVID-19.

Study Findings The impact of forecasting on social innovation has been demonstrated in studies by Byrne et al. (2010) and Shipman et al. (2010). In the Byrne et al. (2010) study, participants were asked to formulate marketing campaigns for a new high energy root

15  Social Innovation: Creativity in the Transformation of Day-to-Day Life

219

beer. In the Shipman et al. (2010) study, participants were asked to formulate a plan for leading a new experimental secondary school. In both studies, the written plans provided by these undergraduate participants were appraised by judges for quality, originality, and elegance. In both studies, as participants worked on their plans, they were asked to complete a set of worksheets—one of which asked them to forecast the implications of implementing their plan a year downstream. Subsequently, a panel of judges evaluated these forecasts on some 21 attributes, including forecasting positive outcomes, forecasting negative outcomes, identifying changes in resources, anticipating problems, considering emerging obstacles, and anticipating opposition. Subsequently, these forecasting attributes were factored with four dimensions emerging: (1) extensiveness of forecasts, (2) forecasting negative events, (3) forecasting resources, and (4) forecasting over a longer time frame. In both studies, the extensiveness of forecasting was found to be strongly positively related (r ≈ 0.40) to the production of original, high quality, and elegant solutions to these social innovation problems. Given the strength of the impact of extensive forecasting on the solutions to social innovation problems, a new question comes to fore. What might encourage people to forecast more extensively? In one study along these lines, Mulhearn et al. (2020) asked some 250 undergraduates to assume the role of a marketing director of a clothing company seeking to enter a new market. Prior to preparing their written plans, plans appraised by judges for quality, originality, and elegance, participants were asked to analyze the strengths or weaknesses in current firm operations and/or anticipate either positive or negative outcomes. It was found, again, that more extensive forecasting was strongly positively related to the production of high quality, more original, and more elegant plans. Notably, however, more extensive forecasting occurred when participants thought about firm weaknesses but anticipated positive outcomes of their ideas. In another study by McIntosh et al. (2021), undergraduates were asked to assume the role of a firm consultant and formulate a plan for a new restaurant chain. Judges appraised these plans for quality, originality, and elegance. Before formulating these plans, participants were asked to forecast either positive or negative outcomes after generating each individual idea or after generating all their ideas. It was found that forecasting both positive and negative outcomes after idea generation, generating each individual idea, contributed to more extensive forecasting and the production of more creative solutions to this social innovation problem. Of course, we can teach people to think about both the positive and negative implications of their ideas. And, indeed, this kind of extensive self-criticism has been found to contribute to creative performance (Kozbelt, 2007). Along somewhat different lines, Osburn and Mumford (2006) asked participants to provide plans for leading a new experimental secondary school where judges appraised plans for quality and originality. Notably, however, before starting work on this task, participants were asked or not asked to complete a set of self-paced training modules intended to provide better strategies for forecasting, such as thinking about positive outcomes, assessing negative attributes in the situation, anticipating likely contingencies and restrictions, and thinking about the conditions that might call for backup

220

M. D. Mumford and T. R. Newbold

plans. They found that training in these forecasting strategies contributed to the production of more creative solutions to this social innovation problem, at least for talented individuals. These findings are noteworthy because, like causal analysis, it does appear we can encourage more extensive forecasting by providing people with viable forecasting strategies. Indeed, given the impact of more extensive forecasting on solving social innovation problems, such interventions may prove especially useful.

Constraint Analysis Case Illustration Few individuals have produced as many historically noteworthy social innovations as Benjamin Franklin (Brands, 2000). Consider just a few—the creation of non-­ sectarian colleges, the founding of subscription libraries, and financial backing for paper currency. One significant social innovation Franklin is remembered for is the founding of volunteer fire departments. In the 1700s, fire was not simply a threat to life and property; it could, and sometimes did, spread extensively resulting in a catastrophe from which a small community, such as colonial Philadelphia, might not easily recover. As a newspaper editor, Franklin was well aware of the consequences of fire and the various causes of these fires, such as shallow hearths, failure to clean chimneys, and the placement of houses. Franklin’s solution to this problem, however, did not address any of these issues directly. Instead, he believed the greatest loss from fire was due to a lack of locally available equipment (e.g., buckets, pumps) and poor organization in responding to the initial outbreak of fire (Mumford, 2002). So how does one respond to a lack of equipment and organization? Franklin’s solution was to establish clubs, or volunteer fire departments, which would organize local responses to fires and provide the equipment needed to fight fires. These clubs were to meet monthly, discuss fire prevention, and purchase the equipment needed to fight fires. In fact, fines were to be levied by these local clubs for failure to attend meetings or help in putting out fires. What should be noted here, however, is Franklin could not address housing, chimneys, or construction practices. And, analysis of these constraints, an analysis evident in is editorials for the Philadelphia Gazette (Mumford, 2002), is what led to this proposal for establishing volunteer fire departments.

15  Social Innovation: Creativity in the Transformation of Day-to-Day Life

221

Study Findings Traditionally, students of creativity have tended to discount the impact of constraint analysis on creative thinking in part due to a belief in the value of open idea generation (Osborn, 1953). Stokes (2007), however, has argued that the imposition and systematic analysis of constraints may, in fact, contribute to idea generation and subsequent creative problem-solving. In fact, over the years, some evidence has been accrued that constraint analysis contributes to social innovation. In an initial study along these lines, Dailey and Mumford (2006) asked undergraduates to assume the role of a member of a foundation review panel. As members of this review panel, they were to appraise proposals with respect to the resources required to implement proposed ideas. What is of note is all presented proposals were based on actual, “real-world” funded proposals whose outcomes and resource requirements were known. It was found that, at least when people had expertise and believed their appraisals of the proposals would be implemented, they could accurately, very accurately, anticipate required resources. Thus, people do seem capable of analyzing resource constraints. The significance of constraint analysis in solving social innovation problems has been demonstrated in a study by Medeiros et  al. (2014). They asked some 300 undergraduates to formulate marketing plans for a new high energy root beer. These marketing plans were evaluated by judges for quality, originality, and elegance. Prior to preparing their plans, however, participants received a series of emails from their supervisor who established varying constraints with respect to (1) marketing fundaments, (2) marketing themes, (3) market information, and (4) available resources. In comparison to a no-constraint condition, it was found that the imposition of a limited number of reasonably malleable constraints contributed to the production of more creative solutions to this social innovation problem. In a subsequent investigation, Medeiros et  al. (2018) asked undergraduates to adopt the role of a consultant and formulate a plan for a new restaurant chain—plans appraised by judges for quality, originality, and elegance. Constraints were imposed at different points as people worked through this social innovation problem—during (1) problem definition, (2) conceptual combination, (3) idea generation, and (4) idea evaluation. It was found the most creative solutions were obtained when constraints were imposed during problem definition and idea evaluation. Thus, teaching people to impose constraints early on in creative problem-solving or impose constraints when evaluating ideas can be expected to prove of value. In fact, Peterson et  al. (2013) provide some additional support for the idea of training people in constraint management strategies. In this study, some 200 undergraduates were asked to formulate plans for leading a new experimental secondary school where judges appraised plans for quality, originality, and elegance. In addition, they were asked to illustrate their mental models for making sense of the problem. Prior to illustrating their mental models or describing their plans, participants were asked to complete a series of self-paced instructional exercises intended to provide viable strategies for constraint management—managing resource

222

M. D. Mumford and T. R. Newbold

constraints, system capability constraints, user skill constraints, and goal constraints. It was found, at least for motivated individuals, that constraint management training resulted in both stronger mental models and the production of more creative solutions to this social innovation problem. Thus, it does appear we can formulate interventions to enhance constraint analysis skills.

Planning Case Illustration Today we perhaps remember Frederick Winslow Taylor for a single contribution— his studies of pay for performance (Landy & Conte, 2016). Taylor, however, was the father of the field of scientific management—the basis for business schools and the field of industrial and organizational psychology. Taylor, however, started his career as an engineering supervisor at the Midvale Steel Works. As a supervisor, he was responsible for activities such as cleaning ovens, supervising employee work, and managing lathe operations (Kanigel, 1997). Lathes are a complex machining tool used, in this case, to cut metal. At the turn of the nineteenth century, however, each lathe operator ran his machine in his own way working as an autonomous expert, choosing cutting tools and machine speeds. This autonomous operation, however, caused Taylor problems—heads were cut, expensive pieces of equipment were broken, lathes were ran too fast, and procedures for appropriate machine setup were disregarded. Taylor came up with a solution to this problem—he provided each machine with a list of standard operating procedures (SOP), which substantially reduced breakage and cost. This apparently straightforward social innovation, a social innovation relying on Taylor’s planning skills, remains with us to this day as one distinct form of transformational creativity—when we fill out forms, which virtually all of us do, and when we receive procedural training. These day-to-day work activities derive directly from the idea of standard operating procedures and Taylor’s planning skills.

Study Findings So do planning skills contribute to social innovation? Some important evidence in this regard has been provided in a study by Marta et al. (2005). They asked undergraduates working in 55 three-to-five person teams to formulate a plan for turning around a failing automotive firm. Judges appraised the written turnaround plans for quality and originality. Prior to starting work on their turnaround plans, all participants were asked to complete a measure of planning skill. On this measure, participants were presented with 15 cases. After reading through each case, participants

15  Social Innovation: Creativity in the Transformation of Day-to-Day Life

223

were presented with 5 questions, each with 8-to-12 potential responses. Participants were asked to select their 2–4 preferred answers to each question. Responses to these questions were scored for planning skill attributes such as identification of downstream consequences and opportunistic implementation strategies. After providing their turnaround plans, participants were asked to nominate the person they felt emerged as the leader of their team during this exercise. The planning skills of these team leaders were found to be strongly, positively related to the production of higher quality and more original solutions to this social innovation problem. Planning, of course, involves the mental simulation of future actions and the effects of these actions (Mumford et al., 2001). In a study by Caughron and Mumford (2008), participants were asked to provide written solutions to three educational problems such as rebuilding a failing school or promoting community involvement in schools. Judges appraised these solutions for quality, originality, and elegance. Prior to starting work on these tasks, however, participants were trained in the use of one-to-three planning techniques, including (1) Gantt charts, (2) case-based planning, and (3) critical path analysis—where people identify events that could jeopardize the success of their plan. As compared to a no-training control condition and other planning techniques, critical path analysis training resulted in the production of the highest quality, most original, and most elegant solutions to these social innovation problems by identifying key issues or risk factors to be taken into account in plan formation. Not only do these findings point to the value of training planning skills; they also point to the value of monitoring the environment for risks and potential opportunities. The need for environmental monitoring in executing social innovation plans is noteworthy for another reason. Plans must be adapted opportunistically (Patalano & Seifert, 1997). Moreover, plan adaptation is strongly influenced by the formation of a viable set of backup plans (Mumford et al., 2015). Giorgini and Mumford (2013) asked undergraduates to formulate plans for restructuring a firm—plans evaluated for quality, originality, and elegance. Participants, however, were also asked to provide backup plans which judges evaluated for detail and depth. It was found the detail and depth of these backup plans was positively related (r ≈ 0.30) to the quality, originality, and elegance of the final restructuring plan. Thus, getting people to think in depth about how plans might work out with respect to obstacles they might encounter (Caughron & Mumford, 2008) appears to contribute to the acquisition of planning skills and the successful solution of social innovation problems.

224

M. D. Mumford and T. R. Newbold

Wisdom Case Illustration Traditionally, we do not think of creative people as being especially wise—an assumption also made about social innovators who we see as “radicals”. Sternberg et al. (2019), however, have argued wisdom may, in fact, prove essential to creative efforts. And, John Dewey provides one case illustration of the value of wisdom in social innovation (Menand, 2001). Dewey was a philosopher and psychologist whose interest in education arose from his own children, his interest in Chicago as a dynamic city, and his involvement with Hull House—a settlement house in Chicago. All these interests led him to reject the rote approach to learning, which was then the predominant approach to schooling in the United States. Exposure to an alternative school, the Cook County Normal School, led Dewey to formulate the concept of the “unity of knowledge”. The idea here is that knowledge and doing are inherently linked activities. In this view, doing creates meaning in learning, thereby reducing boredom and engaging the students. Doing and learning, moreover, were viewed as inherently social activities. Thus, Dewey, as director of the University of Chicago’s laboratory school, oriented instruction around projects such as making lunch for the class—a participative learning activity (Menand, 2001). This vision remains with us to this day—evident in cooperative learning techniques and Montessori schools. It is, however, a model of learning embedded in context—the context of Dewey’s own children, psychology, and Chicago. And, by embedding schooling in context, Dewey evidenced some wisdom.

Study Findings The question that arises at this juncture is, does social innovation require wisdom? Some initial evidence pointing to the importance of wisdom in social innovation has been provided by Connelly et al. (2000). In this study, some 1800 Army officers, ranging in rank from Lieutenant to full Colonel, were asked to provide written solutions to a series of middle management social dilemmas drawn from Shorris (1981). These dilemmas presented relatively intractable social-interactional problems where the problem situation remained unresolved. Officers were asked to provide written answers to three questions: (1) why did this situation occur, (2) what was the central mistake made by the manager, and (3) what would you do if you were the manager in this situation? Judges were asked to rate answers to these questions with respect to six dimensions of wisdom: (1) systems perception, (2) self-reflection, (3) objectivity, (4) sensitivity to solution fit, (5) judgment under uncertainty, and (6) systems commitment. In addition, a number of measures of leader performance were obtained such as critical incident performance and performance in solving military problems calling

15  Social Innovation: Creativity in the Transformation of Day-to-Day Life

225

for creative problem-solving. It was found these attributes of wisdom were positively related (r ≈ 0.30) to both creative problem-solving and performance in resolving critical incidents. Moreover, systems perception, sensitivity to solution fit, and objectivity were found to produce especially strong relationships with creative problem-solving and critical incident performance. Some additional evidence pointing to the importance of wisdom in solving social innovation problems has been provided by Standish (2020). She asked undergraduates to provide a plan for leading a new experimental secondary school where judges appraised the quality, originality, and elegance of written plans. Wisdom was measured using generally “unknown” fables of Aesop where the fables were edited to update content. For the 22 fables included in this measure, Aesop’s moral constituted the correct answer with four distractors being presented. When used to construct a scale, this measure of wisdom produced correlations in the low 0.30’s with the quality, originality, and elegance of solutions to this social innovation problem. Indeed, this wisdom measure added to the variance accounted for by more traditional individual difference variable such as intelligence, divergent thinking, and openness. Given the apparent impact of wisdom on social innovation, a new question comes to fore. Can we develop wisdom? One potential answer to this question has been provided by Mumford et al. (2000). They contrasted junior, mid-level, and senior officers with respect to key attributes of wisdom and found wisdom did increase across officers’ careers as a function of both education and work experience, underscoring Dewey’s argument that learning and doing must be integrated, at least in attempts to develop wisdom.

Conclusion Before turning to the broader implications of the present effort, certain caveats should be noted. To begin, it is important to acknowledge we only provided a select number of case illustrations intended to articulate how each skill might contribute to real-world incidents of social innovation and transformational creativity. Although all case illustrations were drawn from well-validated historical studies (e.g., Isaacson, 2014; Kanigel, 1997), only one case illustration for each skill was provided. And, the kind of systematic, multi-case, historic analysis called for by Simonton (2019) was not conducted. Hopefully such systematic historic analysis will be conducted in the future. Along somewhat different lines, in the present effort, we have focused on seven unique capabilities that appear to contribute to social innovation—expertise, problem definition, causal analysis, forecasting, constraint analysis, planning, and wisdom. The evidence examined in the present effort does suggest each of these skills is strongly, positively related to solving social innovation problems and thus transformational creativity. Indeed, in many cases we have demonstrated these effects on multiple social innovation tasks (e.g., Marcy & Mumford, 2007, 2010), providing

226

M. D. Mumford and T. R. Newbold

some evidence for the generalizability of these skills. By the same token, however, we have not provided any evidence indicating how these skills work together in solving social innovation problems. Although there is good reason to suspect aggregate prediction of social innovation performance would be impressive, the contingencies involved—for example, does causal analysis condition forecasting effectiveness—remain unclear. Finally, we should note, in the present effort, we focused on only seven key skills contributing to performance in solving social innovation problems. Although evidence has been provided indicating all these capacities contribute to people’s ability to solve social innovation problems, there is no assurance that other skills, such as self-criticism (Gibson & Mumford, 2013), might exist that also contribute to solving social innovation problems. Moreover, the possibility remains that certain skills may prove more important in solving social innovation problems drawn from one domain as opposed to another. With this said, what has the present effort told us? First, we have noted the importance of social innovations as distinct representations of transformational creativity. As indicated by the cases discussed in this chapter, solutions to social innovation problems can transform society in ways that make positive and sizable impacts on the day-to-day lives of individuals. Given the importance of these social innovations, we have also emphasized and elaborated on the creative problem-­ solving capacities that make these social innovations possible. More specifically, the various studies examined in the present effort have shown seven key skills— expertise, problem definition, causal analysis, forecasting, constraint analysis, planning, and wisdom—are reasonably powerful predictors of performance on social innovation problems (e.g., Byrne et al., 2010; Marta et al., 2005; Shipman et al., 2010, Standish, 2020). Thus, if one wants to encourage social innovation or transformational creativity, one can try to create conditions where these skills can be applied effectively—for example, one might encourage people to think of constraints early in a cycle of creative problem-solving activities (Medeiros et al., 2018). Another way we might attempt to improve people’s ability to solve social innovation problems is through education and training. In fact, the various studies examined in the present effort (e.g., Marcy & Mumford, 2007, 2010; Osburn & Mumford, 2006) have provided evidence indicating skills-based training programs do, in fact, result in improved performance in solving social innovation problems. Indeed, such training programs appear not only to result in better performance in solving social innovation problems; they result in better understanding, or stronger mental models, of the problem at hand (e.g., Hester et al., 2012). Of course, none of the training efforts examined in the present effort were formal educational programs. They do, however, point to the potential value of such educational programs, even if such programs are difficult and costly to develop and disseminate. Are such costs really justified? Here we will return to the case illustrations provided earlier. These skills are tied to our housing (e.g., Jacobs), our entertainment (e.g., Disney), our industry structures (e.g., Morgan), our media (e.g., Gates), our services (e.g., Franklin), our work life (e.g., Taylor), and our educational systems (e.g., Dewey). Given the transformational and positive impact of these social

15  Social Innovation: Creativity in the Transformation of Day-to-Day Life

227

innovations on our day-to-day lives, there would seem to be ample justification for systematic programs intended to develop these skills. We hope the present effort provides an impetus for further work along these lines—work that will allow creativity to transform our world. Acknowledgments  We would like to thank Samantha England and Mark Fichtel for their contributions to the present effort. Correspondence should be sent to Dr. Michael D.  Mumford, Department of Psychology, The University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma 73019 or [email protected].

References Arens, A. K., Schmidt, I., & Preckel, F. (2019). Longitudinal relations among self-concept, intrinsic value, and attainment value across secondary school years in three academic domains. Journal of Educational Psychology, 11(4), 663–684. Behar-Horenstein, L. S., & Niu, L. (2011). Teaching critical thinking skills in higher education: A review of the literature. Journal of College Teaching & Learning, 8(2), 25–42. Brands, H. W. (2000). The first American: The life and times of Benjamin Franklin. Random House. Byrne, C. L., Shipman, A. S., & Mumford, M. D. (2010). The effects of forecasting on creative problem-solving: An experimental study. Creativity Research Journal, 22, 119–138. Caro, R. A. (1974). The power broker: Robert Moses and the fall of New York. Random House. Caughron, J. J., & Mumford, M. D. (2008). Project planning: The effects of using formal planning techniques on creative problem-solving. Creativity and Innovation Management, 17(3), 204–215. Chernow, R. (1990). The house of Morgan: An American banking dynasty and the rise of modern finance. Grove Press. Christiaans, H.  H. C.  M. (2002). Creativity as a design criterion. Creativity Research Journal, 14(1), 41–54. Cohan, W. D. (2007). The last tycoons: The secret history of Lazard Freres & Co. Broadway Books. Connelly, M.  S., Gilbert, J.  A., Zaccaro, S.  J., Threlfall, K.  V., Marks, M.  A., & Mumford, M. D. (2000). Exploring the relationship of leadership skills and knowledge to leader performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 11(1), 65–86. Dailey, L., & Mumford, M. D. (2006). Evaluative aspects of creative thought: Errors in appraising the implications of new ideas. Creativity Research Journal, 3, 367–384. Drazin, R., Glynn, M.  A., & Kazanjian, R.  K. (1999). Multilevel theorizing about creativity in organizations: A sensemaking perspective. Academy of Management Review, 24, 286–323. Ericsson, K. A., Hoffman, R. R., Kozbelt, A., & Williams, A. M. (Eds.). (2018). The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance. Cambridge University Press. Gabler, N. (2006). Walt Disney: The triumph of the American imagination. Random House. Getzels, J.  W., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1976). The creative vision: A longitudinal study of problem-­finding in art. Wiley. Gibson, C., & Mumford, M. D. (2013). Evaluation, criticism, and creativity: Criticism content and effects on creative problem solving. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 7(4), 314–331. Giorgini, V., & Mumford, M. D. (2013). Backup plans and creative problem-solving: Effects of causal, error, and resource processing. The International Journal of Creativity and Problem Solving, 23(2), 121–147. Gryskiewicz, S. S. (2000). Cashing in on creativity at work. Psychology Today, 33, 62–67.

228

M. D. Mumford and T. R. Newbold

Hennessey, B. A. (2019). Motivation and creativity. In J. C. Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 374–395). Cambridge University Press. Hester, K. S., Robledo, I. C., Barrett, J. D., Peterson, D. R., Hougen, D. P., Day, E. A., & Mumford, M. D. (2012). Causal analysis to enhance creative problem-solving: Performance and effects on mental models. Creativity Research Journal, 24(2–3), 115–133. Hunter, S. T., Bedell-Avers, K. E., Hunsicker, C. M., Mumford, M. D., & Ligon, G. S. (2008). Applying multiple knowledge structures in creative thought: Effects on idea generation and problem-solving. Creativity Research Journal, 20, 137–154. Isaacson, W. (2014). The innovators: How a group of hackers, geniuses, and geeks created the digital revolution. Simon & Schuster. Jacobs, J. (1961). The death and life of great American cities. Random House. Kanigel, R. (1997). The one best way: Frederick Winslow Taylor and the enigma of efficiency. Viking Penguin. Kozbelt, A. (2007). A quantitative analysis of Beethoven as self-critic: Implications for psychological theories of musical creativity. Psychology of Music, 35(1), 144–168. Landy, F. J., & Conte, J. M. (2016). Work in the 21st century: An introduction to industrial and organizational psychology. John Wiley & Sons. Logan, M. K., Damadzic, A., Medeiros, K., Ligon, G. S., & Derrick, D. C. (2021). Constraints to malevolent innovation in terrorist attacks. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts. Advance online publication. Marcy, R.  T., & Mumford, M.  D. (2007). Social innovation: Enhancing creative performance through causal analysis. Creativity Research Journal, 19(2–3), 123–140. Marcy, R. T., & Mumford, M. D. (2010). Leader cognition: Improving leader performance through causal analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(1), 1–19. Marta, S., Leritz, L. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2005). Leadership skills and the group performance: Situational demands, behavioral requirements, and planning. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 97–120. McIntosh, T., Mulhearn, T.  J., & Mumford, M.  D. (2021). Taking the good with the bad: The impact of forecasting timing and valence on idea evaluation and creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 15(1), 111–124. Medeiros, K. E., Partlow, P. J., & Mumford, M. D. (2014). Not too much, not too little: The influence of constraints on creative problem solving. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8, 198. Medeiros, K. E., Steele, L. M., Watts, L. L., & Mumford, M. D. (2018). Timing is everything: Examining the role of constraints throughout the creative process. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 12(4), 471. Menand, L. (2001). The metaphysical club: A story of ideas in America. Farrar, Straus, and Giroux. Mulhearn, T. J., McIntosh, T., & Mumford, M. D. (2020). Reflecting on the past, looking towards the future: The effects of case analysis on forecasting. Creativity Research Journal, 32(3), 299–312. Mumford, M. D. (2002). Social innovation: Ten cases from Benjamin Franklin. Creativity Research Journal, 14(2), 253–266. Mumford, M. D., Baughman, W. A., Threlfall, K. V., Supinski, E. P., & Costanza, D. P. (1996). Process-based measures of creative problem-solving skills: I. Problem construction. Creativity Research Journal, 9(1), 63–76. Mumford, M. D., & Fichtel, M. W. (2020). Local safety versus global risk: Models of the creative work environment. In R.  Reiter-Palmon, C.  M. Fisher, & J.  S. Mueller (Eds.), Creativity at work (pp. 99–107). Palgrave Macmillan. Mumford, M. D., Giorgini, V., Gibson, C., & Mecca, J. (2013). Creative thinking: Processes, strategies, and knowledge. In K.  Thomas & J.  Chan (Eds.), Handbook of research on creativity (pp. 249–264). Edward Elgar Publishing.

15  Social Innovation: Creativity in the Transformation of Day-to-Day Life

229

Mumford, M. D., & Gustafson, S. B. (2007). Creative thought: Cognition and problem solving in a dynamic system. In M. A. Runco (Ed.), Creativity research handbook (Vol. 2, pp. 33–77). Hampton. Mumford, M.  D., Hester, K.  S., Robledo, I.  C., Peterson, D.  R., Day, E.  A., Hougen, D.  F., & Barrett, J. D. (2012). Mental models and creative problem-solving: The relationship of objective and subjective model attributes. Creativity Research Journal, 24, 311–330. Mumford, M.  D., Marks, M.  A., Connelly, M.  S., Zaccaro, S.  J., & Reiter-Palmon, R. (2000). Development of leadership skills: Experience and timing. The Leadership Quarterly, 11(1), 87–114. Mumford, M.  D., Martin, R., Elliott, S., & Todd, E.  M. (2019). Leading social innovation and community engagement: Strategies for picking the right actions. In J. A. Allen & R. Reiter-­ Palmon (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of organizational community engagement and outreach (pp. 261–280). Cambridge University Press. Mumford, M. D., & McIntosh, T. (2017). Creative thinking processes: The past and the future. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 51(4), 317–322. Mumford, M.  D., McIntosh, T., & Mulhearn, T. (2018). Using cases to understand expert performance: Method and methodological triangulation. In K.  A. Ericsson, R.  R. Hoffman, A. Kozbelt, & A. M. Williams (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp. 291–309). Cambridge University Press. Mumford, M.  D., Mecca, J.  T., & Watts, L.  L. (2015). Planning processes: Relevant cognitive operations. In M. D. Mumford & M. Frese (Eds.), The psychology of planning in organizations (pp. 25–46). Routledge. Mumford, M. D., & Moertl, P. (2003). Cases of social innovation: Lessons from two innovations in the 20th century. Creativity Research Journal, 15(2–3), 261–266. Mumford, M. D., Schultz, R. A., & Van Doorn, J. R. (2001). Performance in planning: Processes, requirements, and errors. Review of General Psychology, 5(3), 213–240. Ng, T.  W. H., & Lucianetti, L. (2016). Within-individual increases in innovative behavior and creative, persuasion, and change self-efficacy over time: A social-cognitive theory perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(1), 14–34. Osborn, A.  F. (1953). Applied imagination: Principles and procedures of creative thinking. Scribner. Osburn, H.  K., & Mumford, M.  D. (2006). Creativity and planning: Training interventions to develop creative problem-solving skills. Creativity Research Journal, 18, 173–190. Patalano, A.  L., & Seifert, C.  M. (1997). Opportunistic planning: Being reminded of pending goals. Cognitive Psychology, 34(1), 1–36. Peterson, D. R., Barrett, J. D., Hester, K. S., Robledo, I. C., Hougen, D. F., Day, E. A., & Mumford, M.  D. (2013). Teaching people to manage constraints: Effects on creative problem-solving. Creativity Research Journal, 25(3), 335–347. Reiter-Palmon, R., Mumford, M. D., O’Connor Boes, J., & Runco, M. A. (1997). Problem construction and creativity: The role of ability, cue consistency, and active processing. Creativity Research Journal, 10(1), 9–23. Reiter-Palmon, R., Mumford, M. D., & Threlfall, K. V. (1998). Solving everyday problems creatively: The role of problem construction and personality type. Creativity Research Journal, 11(3), 187–197. Reiter-Palmon, R., & Robinson, E. J. (2009). Problem identification and construction: What do we know, what is the future? Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 3(1), 43–47. Runco, M. A., & Acar, S. (2019). Divergent thinking. In J. C. Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 224–254). Cambridge University Press. Rybczynski, W. (2007). Last harvest: How a cornfield became New Daleville. Scribner Book Company. Shipman, A. S., Byrne, C. L., & Mumford, M. D. (2010). Leader vision formation and forecasting: The effects of forecasting extent, resources, and timeframe. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(3), 439–456.

230

M. D. Mumford and T. R. Newbold

Shorris, E. (1981). The oppressed middle: Scenes from corporate life: The politics of middle management. Penguin. Simonton, D. K. (2019). The sociocultural context of exceptional creativity: Historiometric methods. In I. Lebuda & V. P. Glaveanu (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of social creativity research (pp. 13–25). Palgrave Macmillan. Standish, C. (2020). Wisdom and leadership: Do wise people perform more efficiently? [Master’s Thesis, University of Oklahoma]. Sternberg, R. J. (2021). Transformational creativity: The link between creativity, wisdom, and the solution of global problems. Philosophies, 6(75), 1–10. Sternberg, R. J., Kaufman, J. C., & Roberts, A. M. (2019). The relation of creativity to intelligence and wisdom. In J. C. Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 337–352). Cambridge University Press. Stokes, P. D. (2007). Using constraints to generate and sustain novelty. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 1(2), 107–113. Strouse, J. (1999). Morgan: American financier. Random House. Trent, S. B., Prange, K. A., & Allen, J. A. (2019). Volunteer program assessment: A university-­ community partnership. In J. A. Allen & R. Reiter-Palmon (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of organizational community engagement and outreach (pp. 35–62). Cambridge University Press. Vincent, A.  S., Decker, B.  P., & Mumford, M.  D. (2002). Divergent thinking, intelligence, and expertise: A test of alternative models. Creativity Research Journal, 14, 163–178. Zaccaro, S. J., Mumford, M. D., Connelly, M. S., Marks, M. A., & Gilbert, J. A. (2000). Assessment of leader problem-solving capabilities. The Leadership Quarterly, 11(1), 37–64.

Chapter 16

Implementing Transformational Creativity in Higher Education Jonathan A. Plucker

and Rafaela Diegoli

The first author was recently listening to an NPR story about “deep fakes,” those videos that rely on advances in artificial intelligence and computing power to create completely fictitious images. For example, a political operative could create a video showing a political opponent engaging in nefarious activity, and then spread it on social media so that the video was viewed millions of times before the opponent could note its existence, let alone its lack of veracity. The reporter took great pains to note the potential uses of the technology that could be positive, but then concluded the story with an exchange with one of the leading scientists developing these tools. The reporter acknowledged the potential benefits but then noted the negative applications, commenting that they were numerous and obvious. In a response that sent a chill down the first author’s spine, the scientist, completely confused, replied that she had no idea what the reporter was talking about. “What negative uses?” In an era of unprecedented technological advancement, questions about the negative impact of creativity and innovation have grown. Academics have been worried about so-called dark creativity for some time (Cropley et al., 2010), but the topic is now widespread across several fields and is frequently raised in national discussions about the future of technological innovation. For example, social media has created considerable economic and communication benefits for societies around the world, while almost certainly being a major factor in the sharp increase in mental illness, especially among pre-teen and teen girls, that began around the same time as the growth of these social networks. In a similar vein, platforms such as Facebook, J. A. Plucker (*) School of Education, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA e-mail: [email protected] R. Diegoli Tecnológico de Monterrey, Monterrey, Mexico e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2024 R. J. Sternberg, S. Karami (eds.), Transformational Creativity, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-51590-3_16

231

232

J. A. Plucker and R. Diegoli

Twitter, and now Tik-Tok have exponentially accelerated the communication of information around the world, democratizing both the production of and access to valuable news and data. At the same time, these innovative platforms have also democratized the production of and access to misinformation and fake data, with extensive negative consequences. These examples are so ubiquitous that the need to address the problems of dark creativity becomes obvious. As educators primarily concerned with developing creative and innovative skills in young people, these developments have certainly weighed on our minds. As Sternberg and Karami (2024, this volume) have noted, our efforts to develop creativity in students over the past several decades, which assumed a rather value-­ positive (or at least value-neutral) conceptualization of creativity, are likely insufficient to meet the challenges posed by malevolent or dark creativity (see also Sternberg, 2021). Which raises the question: How do we promote transformational creativity and avoid promoting dark creativity? Not addressing the question feels like a capitulation to the dark side. From our perspective, the default in K-12 schools and universities around the world is not to address creativity education in a comprehensive way, and that approach does not appear to be helping the current situation. More of the same will lead to more of the same. So what do we do instead?

Definitions Before we share our experiences, we define our terms. This chapter relies on the Plucker et al. (2004) definition of creativity, “Creativity is the interaction among aptitude, process, and environment by which an individual or group produces a perceptible product that is both novel and useful as defined within a social context” (p. 90). This approach works well with the Sternberg and Karami (2024, this volume) definition of transformational creativity, “the production of novel and useful ideas and products that, over the long- as well as the short-term, make the world a better place—that make a positive, meaningful, and potential enduring difference to the world” (p. X). Indeed, the Sternberg and Karami conceptualization causes us to wonder if the “within a social context” qualification, which Plucker et al. believe to be the most important part of their definition, should be modified to note that creative products should be viewed as having an ethical component (see Gardner, 2011 [1993], for similar sentiments). Regardless, the definitions all point to the same goal: helping students learn to produce new, useful, transformative ideas and products that benefit society writ large.

16  Implementing Transformational Creativity in Higher Education

233

Transformational Creativity in Higher Education Although education for transformational creativity can be justified at every level of formal and informal schooling, an emphasis on this learning goal at the higher education level is important. Higher education is a cradle of innovation, entrepreneurship, and cultural development, with an increasing focus on creativity and innovation in many countries’ higher education systems over the past two decades. At the same time, criticisms of a lack of ethical training in higher education have grown, as in response to the Great Recession. Efforts to promote transformational creativity may be especially effective at (and welcome in) the postsecondary level. Indeed, that is the level at which our work has focused. In this chapter, we describe two distinct efforts to promote transformational creativity at the university level. In the first, situated at Tecnológico de Monterrey, transformational creativity was designed into the program from the start. In the second, a longer-term personal creativity program taught at several universities, transformational creativity  was added over time to the coursework. After describing these two efforts, we conclude with thoughts about lessons-learned for  promoting transformational creativity in higher education.

The Tec21 Model The first case is drawn from Tecnológico de Monterrey, one of Mexico’s leading private universities and among the most prestigious technical and business-focused institutions in Latin America. Tec has over 94,000 high school, undergraduate, and graduate students across 26 campuses in Mexico and 18 sites around the world (Tecnológico de Monterrey, 2023a). Created in 1943, Tec’s current vision focuses on Leadership, Innovation, and Entrepreneurship for human flourishing, supported by the values of innovation, integrity, collaboration, empathy and inclusion, and global citizenship (Tecnológico de Monterrey, 2023b). These emphases are reflective of goals related to Sternberg and Karami’s definition of fully transformational creativity, that is, creatively transforming both one’s self and others. The educational model of undergraduate studies of Tecnológico de Monterrey is an institutional commitment to a more transcendent and student-centered teaching and learning process. A new curriculum was implemented in 2019, integrating all the elements considered in the new educational model, referred to as “Tec21,” a competence-based educational model built on four pillars: use of challenges to develop competencies, flexibility, inspiring faculty, and memorable university experiences (Olivares et al., 2021). Competencies within the framework of the educational model are defined as “the conscious integration of knowledge, skills, attitudes and values, which allows students to successfully face both structured and uncertain situations” (Tecnológico de Monterrey, 2023b). The competencies, which are anticipated to lead to creativity, innovation, and entrepreneurship, are classified as

234

J. A. Plucker and R. Diegoli

d­ isciplinary, which are common to the same program or area of concentration, or transversal, which are developed in the students of all programs. All sub-­competences and levels of mastery are mapped in the training units of the curriculum in which its development and evaluation takes place. The first pillar of the educational model refers to learning using challenges. Through the link with companies, government, and other civil society organizations, which act as training partners, students are presented with a challenging context that will allow them to develop the declared competences in a certain subject. Therefore, the learning experience is meaningful, aligned to real life, and to the great events of the moment. The second pillar, flexibility, is conceptualized as informed, accompanied, and gradual decision-making. This use of flexibility differs from traditional use within the study of creative cognition, as it applies to the multiple pathways that students may take through their undergraduate curriculum. For example, students enter their programs of study through nine starting avenues and graduate in 1 of 44 degree programs. In the first two or three semesters, students take subjects in which they develop broad disciplinary competencies that are common to a certain group of programs. This format allows students to delay the decision of their undergraduate program, for those students who have not taken it, also allowing an exploration of the various alternatives of careers in sister disciplines. Once the student chooses their program, they enter a stage focusing on those competencies that are specific to their specialty. A third stage of the program includes one or two semesters in which the student can deepen their knowledge and skills in their discipline or expand their area of expertise through a concentration, an international exchange program, or an entrepreneurial internship. This third stage allows the student to personalize their graduation profile. For example, one student in the Bachelor of Design program could specialize Design and Technology, while another could specialize in Visual Design (Vice-Rectory, n.d.). Additionally, there are other courses in which the student can choose from an offer pool (e.g., general education) allowing up to 40% of credits in which some type of customization is allowed. The emphasis on programmatic and curricular flexibility, matched with provision of extensive opportunities for personalization and application, reflects a belief that there is no one right path to developing transformational creativity attitudes and skills, and that each student may seek a unique path to those goals. This approach also reinforces that development of pro-social creativity and entrepreneurial skills is best accomplished over the long-term—and under the guidance and mentoring of an academic director, which is consistent with the development of expertise and wisdom, which is a foundational aspect of transformational creativity. Generating quality teaching-learning outcomes, such as those desired in Tec21, is not possible without an inspiring faculty, the third pillar of the model. In addition to being experts in their disciplines, instructors are expected to be context-oriented, apply innovative teaching strategies, and master the use of educational technology to promote learning and creativity. Significant investment in professional development and additional training was needed to support faculty fully as they worked within the new model. Finally, the university experience is also affected by what

16  Implementing Transformational Creativity in Higher Education

235

happens outside the classroom, and its importance is reflected in the pillar called “memorable experiences.” This pillar is organized around a series of resources and activities that allow students to develop their well-being holistically, in addition to building a life plan that leads to long-term academic and personal success.

Restructuring the University Schedule The new model required significant changes in the structure of the curriculum, as the traditional semester-long course proved to be ill-suited for the solving of open-­ ended challenges. As a result, the semester was changed from a standard course load of six 17-week subjects, to being organized into three periods of five weeks followed by a week of immersion and courses that could last for 5, 10 or 15 weeks depending on the competences that they should develop (See Fig. 16.1). This scheduling allows for optimal timeframes for connection and immersion in the challenges. Also, new types of courses, called “blocks” were introduced. These interdisciplinary training units are composed of learning modules of the different disciplines necessary to solve a specific challenge. These training units are taught by a minimum of two teachers and may have a minimum duration of 60 hours in five weeks. Another new format used is the high-immersion one-week training units, called Tec Weeks, which involve a week of student work and are mainly focused on the development of transversal competences. This curricular space allows the academic coexistence of students of all careers, gathered for the resolution of a multidisciplinary challenge focused on the elements of the institutional vision, activities of induction to professional life, self-management, or social service. Again, a foundational theme cutting across all of these experiences is how the individual interacts with others to create positive societal change. For one or two semesters called “Tec Semester,” depending on the program, students may choose a learning experience between a concentration, an international exchange program or an entrepreneurship, company, or research internship. The concentration unit implies a “total and concentrated immersion in the development of the corresponding competences” (Tecnológico de Monterrey, 2021). The modules of the concentration “are constituted by areas or groups of content integrated by knowledge that includes conceptual, procedural, and attitudinal aspects; selected according to the competencies that are sought to develop in the concentration. The contents of the modules provide a basis for the intervention and learning of students in the challenge(s)” (Tecnológico de Monterrey, 2021). The challenges within the concentration seek to generate learning experiences where the student can become immersed in real situations that require the application of learned content, as well as to participate actively in the attention to problems or needs of the environment, in particular, with the training partner. From the first semester it was implemented, concentrations have been the favorite choice by students.

Semester 5

Semester 8

Semester 4

Semester 7

Semester 9

Semester 6

Semester 3

Fig. 16.1  Typical student schedule before and after Tec21 implementation

Semester 2

Before

Semester 1

Semester 5

Semester 7

Semester 6

Semester 2

Tec21

Semester 4

Semester 1

Semester 8

Semester 3

236 J. A. Plucker and R. Diegoli

16  Implementing Transformational Creativity in Higher Education

237

An Example of a Concentration The concentration Emprender Ciudad (“Developing the City” or “Entrepreneurship in the City”) aims to create a business model that reconceptualizes the paradigm of real estate developments with an ethical perspective to generate a diverse, accessible, resilient, aesthetic, and inclusive city for all. In this context, the ideal training partner for this educational activity is a real estate developer whose work specializes in consolidated areas of the city, with a mix of uses, close to facilities and services. The challenge of a concentration allows the professors to contextualize the development of competence that occurs in it. This concentration seeks to develop four disciplinary sub-competencies and two disciplinary sub-competences, which are: 1. Ethical argumentation (transversal): The student solves problems in various areas of life with an ethical consciousness based on principles and values. 2. Citizen commitment to social transformation (transversal): The student builds committed, sustainable, and supportive solutions to social problems and needs through strategies that strengthen democracy and the common good. 3. Master plan design (disciplinary): The student designs master plans for sustainable development, considering the different territorial scales. 4. Feasibility (disciplinary): The student develops territorial investment projects based on economic, social, and environmental cost-benefit criteria. 5. Entrepreneurship (disciplinary): The student promotes entrepreneurial actions that derive from the competencies inherent to architecture. 6. Real estate strategy and investment (disciplinary): The student integrates the best alternative for investment and implementation of a real estate project based on an adequate use of human, material, and technological resources. This concentration is offered to students of all programs, increasing the complexity of design—since disciplinary sub-competencies of the Architecture and Urbanism programs are developed—but also adding richness in interdisciplinary training. The concentration consists of a challenge and seven learning modules divided into three stages (Fig. 16.2). The implementation of concentrations takes advantage of the richness of the context. For example, in the generation that enrolled this training unit on February 22 at the Querétaro campus, there were students from the programs of Architecture, Urbanism, Industrial Engineering, Civil Engineering, Business Administration, Marketing, and Entrepreneurship (Personal Communication, Paula Paola Bárcena Mapi, professor of national design and coordinator of the group at Campus Querétaro, March 13, 2023). So, in addition to the interdisciplinarity immersed in the design and profile of teachers, the team of students also contributed to more creative work. In this case, the involvement with the context implied an even more ambitious project than was planned. The final deliverable of the concentration, in which the students were organized as a single architectural office, included: (a) a final presentation with proposals related to current urban regulations to the Director

Module 4 Value proposal

Module 2 Entrepreneurship

Validation activity. Assessment and feedback Stage 1

Module 7 Communication

Validation activity. Final Assessment and feedback

Stage 3. Presentation of the solutions

Validation activity. Assessment and feedback Stage 2

Stage 2. Real state entrepreneurship

Module 6 Profitability

Module 5 Company

Fig. 16.2  Structure of typical Tec21 concentrations. (Source: Tecnológico de Monterrey, 2022a)

Stage 1. City innovation through entrepreneurship

Module 3 People

Module 1 City

Business Model

238 J. A. Plucker and R. Diegoli

16  Implementing Transformational Creativity in Higher Education

239

of ­Municipal Urban Development and a state deputy; (b) a pitch presentation to a crowdfunding company of real estate projects; (c) the delivery to the real estate developer of the previous presentations as well as the complete project including an impact study, diagnostic analysis, master plan project, and sales brochure of the development reaching the level of design detail of each type of departments and commercial areas. All these deliverables were developed under a principle not only to generate business opportunities, but also healthy habits (e.g., through the promotion of “slow flows” of mobility by generating a model of a diverse city with destinations within easy walking and biking distance). The interesting thing about teaching-learning processes such as the one framed in the concentrations is that they allow a high contextualization of learning. In the previous example, the input for the development of the challenge was given by the problem of the real estate development area that is found in a central education, but without urban development, and where there is also a micro-basin where rainwater flows from the surrounding hills (Personal Communication, Paula Paola Bárcena Mapi, March 13, 2023). From this starting point, students are asked questions as broad as, How do you begin a new development? How do new developments connect to the existing community? How to ensure the urban form respects the natural environment? These questions undoubtedly generate anxiety in students since there is no single right answer and they often require consideration of thorny ethical and moral issues. However, with the advice and guidance of teachers, it is exactly this messy context that allows the development of proposals as creative and diverse as those observed in this implementation.

Effectiveness of the Model The measurement elements of the effectiveness plan attend to each of the pillars of the model, in addition to complementary aspects such as terminal efficiency and employer opinion (Tecnológico de Monterrey, 2022b). The first generation of the 2019 curricula will graduate in June 2023, the month in which we are finalizing this chapter, so the first edition of this report is not yet available. However, preliminary indicators are positive and have been improving with each semester of implementation. For example, the percentage of highly recommended teachers has grown from 47% in December 2019 to 66% in December 2022 among students. This assessment has been consistently better in students of the new plans than in those of the previous plans (i.e., those students who began their studies prior to 2019). Interestingly, perceptions of teaching effectiveness between instructors in Tec21 compared to those teaching earlier cohorts has shrunk over time (Tecnológico de Monterrey, 2023c). A likely explanation would be that, with most faculty teaching under both models during this transition phase, many of the Tec21 innovations have made their way into the pre-Tec21 programs. Other indicators that suggest improvement include student satisfaction with advising/mentoring, which has increased each academic period, as well as the

240

J. A. Plucker and R. Diegoli

o­ pinion they express in general about the educational model. An indicator of this improvement is retention in the first year, which rose from 90.6% in the 2020/2021 cycle to 92.1% in the 2021/2022 cycle and should follow this trend in the cycle ending with registrations for August 2023 (Tecnológico de Monterrey, 2022b). One of the factors attributed to this improvement is the new structure for advising students that went from having a program director expected to cater to all student needs to a team composed of a peer mentor, a student success mentor, and a program director. This advising now occurs within the broad disciplinary paths, becoming more specialized over time, allowing for better mentorship and exposure to the development of wisdom and related constructs that are vital components of transformational creativity.

The Attitude-First Model In contrast to the Tec experience, the second model has been taught on a much smaller scale but over a longer period of time. Beginning in the late 1990s, the first author and colleagues developed a model for enhancing personal and group creativity (Plucker & Dow, 2017), which was first taught at Indiana University and later taught at several other universities in the U.S. and China. It is now taught at both Johns Hopkins University in Maryland and Christopher Newport University in Virginia. The basic tenets of the model are (1) a focus on attitude change, (2) helping students identify their strengths, and (3) an emphasis on both personal and external factors related to creativity. Based on the prevalence of myths about creativity (e.g., creativity only applies to the arts, you are either born with or without creativity, drug use positively impacts creativity), attitude adjustment forms the foundation of the model. The roots of these myths have grown very deep, to the point that many of them are still widely held despite recent theoretical and empirical advances in the field and the often overwhelming evidence of the misperceptions’ fallibility (Plucker et  al., 2004; Treffinger et  al., 1996). A triarchic approach was adopted based on affective changes through direct experiences with creativity, on behavioral changes through altering the students’ actions regarding creativity, and on cognitive changes through highlighting inconsistencies in current beliefs (Olson & Zanna, 1993; Weber & Crocker, 1983). Without a personal analysis of these myths, most creativity enhancement efforts are short-term patches. This approach was used with the hope that incorrect attitudes can be brought to the surface and then adjusted or eliminated. The next component of the model is to help people determine which creativity strategies work best for them. These strategies can be conceptualized in a variety of ways: We have used the traditional Five P approach (i.e., process, product, person, press, and persuasion), and we have also used an approach we call CPSEE (i.e., identifying Cognitive, Political, Social, Environmental, and Emotional strengths and preferences) (Plucker & Dow, 2017). Regardless of the approach, the emphasis is on respecting individual differences in abilities, interests, and preferences.

16  Implementing Transformational Creativity in Higher Education

241

The third component of the model is the balance in emphasis on external and personal factors in creativity. Influential research encourages practitioners to be aware of external or environmental factors when fostering creativity (e.g., Amabile, 1983, 1996; Baer, 2016), but we believe the cautions have been oversold. When we focus exclusively on external factors (which is how we often see this research applied to education), we remove the responsibility for creativity from the individual. Rather, practitioners should promote a more balanced perspective, one in which students learn to interact successfully with their environment when attempting to solve problems creatively. The majority of class activities revolve around experiential learning, inquiry-­ based activities, and problem-based learning, supplemented with whole-class and small group discussions, individual and group projects, and class presentations in an effort to obtain a better understanding of creativity. Topics include techniques for stimulating creativity, strategies for stimulating the creativity of others, learning to avoid common blocks to creativity, and exploring how creativity and innovation are used in a wide range of professions and occupations. By exposing students to creativity research in active ways (i.e., through activities and projects vs. lectures), students are more likely to begin to identify and relinquish any of their incorrect views and to slowly begin to change their attitudes toward creativity. Through this course, we strive to begin a course of action in misconception identification and a movement toward schema correction regarding creativity. Transformational creativity and ethical considerations have been the focus of the course from inception (i.e., the misconception that creators have no control over whether their work is used for good or ill). As the first author was working on the initial conceptual model for the course, he attended a talk by William McDonough, an architect and designer and Michael Braungart, a chemical engineer. They argued that ethics and sustainability should be key facets of any creative process. In particular, McDonough noted how these principles were incorporated into the design of the 2000 World’s Fair in Hannover, Germany (hence “The Hannover Principles”), and are being used today to promote sustainable, environmentally sensitive design and manufacturing (see McDonough, 1992; McDonough & Braungart, 2010). The nine Hannover Principles are meant to be broad tenets of modern design, including principles such as “insist on rights of humanity and nature to co-exist in a health, supportive, diverse and sustainable condition,” “seek constant improvement by the sharing of knowledge,” and “understand the limitations of design” (McDonough, 1992, p. 5). But the fourth principle had an especially strong impact: “Accept responsibility for the consequences of design.” McDonough and Braungart emphasized that these principles were not meant to be applied retroactively; rather, they should be kept in mind during the creative process. In other words, what are the possible implications of this idea, and how can I improve the idea to maximize the likelihood of positive implications and minimize possible, negative outcomes? A version of the fourth principle is incorporated into the creativity course in both explicit and implicit ways. Explicitly, the existence of ethical dilemmas is introduced during specific “ethics weeks.” These generally involved viewing a film, such

242

J. A. Plucker and R. Diegoli

as Pirates of Silicon Valley, which dramatizes the early days of Apple and Microsoft and touches on a range of ethically questionable behavior, ranging from stealing competitors’ ideas to misleading investors and stakeholders to offensive personal behavior. The goal of the ensuing class discussions is to have students acknowledge that almost any creative act involves ethical dimensions that need to be addressed. More implicitly, ethical responsibility is embedded into the many project-based assignments during the course. For example, every student is required to create an invention and present it to the class. The primary evaluation of each invention is conducted not by the instructor but rather by the creator’s peers, reflecting principles of creative articulation (Plucker, 2016). Feedback is provided along several dimensions, including the traditional U.S. Patent Office criteria of originality, usefulness, and surprise (or non-obviousness) (Simonton, 2012). Students are also asked to identify whether they would purchase the invention, if applicable, and to vote for their favorite invention. Recently, another question was added: Had the inventor considered potential negative uses of the product and addressed the degree to which those uses could be designed out of the invention? By working the need for transformational creativity (and, conversely, malevolent creativity) into the criteria for success for the project, we were able to reinforce earlier, more generalized discussions about ethical aspects of creativity down the students’ level as they practiced doing creative work. Versions of this course have been taught since 1997, and one of its most attractive aspects, from an instructor’s perspective, is its evolution over time. Finding ways to further develop the course to promote deliberate development of transformational creativity is a priority for future iterations of the course.

Lessons Learned Thus Far Both of the efforts described in this chapter to promote transformational creativity have been designed, implemented, and improved using principles of design thinking (Worwood & Plucker, 2017). As such, they are iterative and the focus of continuous improvement efforts. These processes, and especially comparisons of the two efforts, lead us to several initial conclusions about educating for transformational creativity within higher education. First, development of dispositions and skills leading to positive forms of creativity don’t just happen on their own. That is a bit obvious, given that if it did happen on its own, the editors would not have needed to create this book! But we believe this point is still worth emphasizing. As the old saying goes, we need to be the change we want to see in the world. Educators at the university level need to commit to promoting transformational creativity (and other societally and culturally desirable outcomes). Given that a key characteristic of positive creativity is that creators should consider long-term consequences of their actions (Sternberg & Karami, 2021), these postsecondary efforts need to be thoughtful and intense.

16  Implementing Transformational Creativity in Higher Education

243

But we have not found this work to be easy. Although general resistance to teaching for creativity and innovation has faded over time, the structural and instructional changes needed to take these approaches are not “easy sells” at many institutions. For example, the first author has attempted for years to expand the second, class-­ based program piloted primarily at American universities; regularly teaching the course is acceptable, expanding it into a concentration or minor has proven more difficult (but not impossible). At Tec, a broad-based, inclusive planning process led to leadership, faculty, and stakeholder support that facilitated the tremendous changes that were needed to create, implement, and maintain the program. Of course, change in higher education is difficult apart from the focus on creativity; in the case of Tec, a major focus of the effort was improving collaboration among stakeholders and incorporating student feedback throughout the process. It is not easy to move from being the only teacher of a course to being part of a multi-­ instructor team. We also sense a generational advantage when working with today’s students. Gen Z students tend to be enthusiastic about considering the ethical and moral dilemmas faced by their generation as they pursue innovations and solutions to the major problems of the day. For example, considering the environmental impact of their work is a given, if not de rigeur. This is a major reason for our optimism about continuing and strengthening this work in higher education. Of course, the people mentoring students through these types of programs are older and bring different mindsets to this work. If they hold strong stereotypes about creativity and innovation, possibly even believing that transformational creativity cannot be taught, they are not ready to guide young adults through these activities. Tec has invested significant resources in professional development and additional training to support faculty as they work within the new model. In the second example, instructors are chosen deliberately and, when possible, transitioned into the course over multiple semesters. For instance, a current instructor for the course audited it for one semester, then served as a teaching assistant/co-teacher for a second, before moving into the lead instructor role (yet still mentored by a more experienced instructor). When teaching for transformational creativity, we are all learning! Finally, our major conclusion has a pessimistic framing but optimistic message: No one has figured this out yet, and we need to keep trying and studying the outcomes of this intervention work. The payoff is so huge—finding proactive ways to reverse the plague of malevolent creativity that afflicts us—that we must invest in these and related efforts. Transformational creativity is best seen as a moral and ethical requirement, and the programs described in this chapter provide evidence that higher education can play a role in meeting that requirement.

References Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. Springer Verlag. Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context. Westview Press.

244

J. A. Plucker and R. Diegoli

Baer, J. (2016). Creativity doesn’t develop in a vacuum. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 2016(151), 9–20. https://doi.org/10.1002/cad.20151 Cropley, D. H., Cropley, A. J., Kaufman, J. C., & Runco, M. A. (Eds.). (2010). The dark side of creativity. Cambridge University Press. Gardner, H. (2011 [1993]). Creating minds: An anatomy of creativity seen through the lives of Freud, Einstein, Picasso, Stravinsky, Eliot, Graham, and Ghandi. Basic Books. McDonough, W. (1992). The Hannover principles. Author. https://mcdonough.com/wp-­content/ uploads/2013/03/Hannover-­Principles-­1992.pdf McDonough, W., & Braungart, M. (2010). Cradle to cradle: Remaking the way we make things. North Point Press. Olivares, S. L., López Islas, J. R., Pineda Garín, M. J., Rodríguez Chapa, J. A., Aguayo Hernández, C.  H., & Peña Ortega, L.  O. (2021). Modelo educativo Tec21: retos para una vivencia que transforma. Tecnológico de Monterrey. Olson, J. M., & Zanna, M. P. (1993). Attitudes and attitude change. Annual Review of Psychology, 44, 117–154. Plucker, J.  A. (2016). Creative articulation. In J.  A. Plucker (Ed.), Creativity and innovation: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 151–163). Prufrock Press. Plucker, J. A., & Dow, G. T. (2017). Attitude change as the precursor to creativity enhancement. In R.  A. Beghetto & J.  C. Kaufman (Eds.), Nurturing creativity in the classroom (2nd ed., pp. 190–211). Cambridge. Plucker, J. A., Beghetto, R. A., & Dow, G. (2004). Why isn’t creativity more important to educational psychologists? Potential, pitfalls, and future directions in creativity research. Educational Psychologist, 39, 83–96. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3902_1 Simonton, D.  K. (2012). Taking the U.S. patent office criteria seriously: A quantitative three-­ criterion creativity definition and its implications. Creativity Research Journal, 24(2–3), 97–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2012.676974 Sternberg, R. J. (2021). Transformational creativity: The link between creativity, wisdom, and the solution of global problems. Philosophies, 6, 75. https://doi.org/10.3390/philosophies6030075 Sternberg, R.  J., & Karami, S. (2021). Teaching for positive creativity. ASCD Express, 16, 15. https://www.ascd.org/el/articles/teaching-­for-­positive-­creativity. Sternberg, R. J., & Karami, S. (2024, this volume). Why transformational creativity? Tecnológico de Monterrey. (2021). Lineamientos para el diseño de concentraciones de un semestre como parte de la oferta de Semestre Tec. Author. Tecnológico de Monterrey. (2022a). Canvas ‘Empreender Ciudad’. Author. Tecnológico de Monterrey. (2022b). Evaluation strategy of Tec21 model. Author. Tecnológico de Monterrey. (2023a). Data and figures. Retrieved March 7, 2023, from https://tec. mx/en/data-­and-­figures Tecnológico de Monterrey. (2023b). Formation that transforms lives. Retrieved March 7, 2023, from https://tec.mx/en/about-­us/formation-­transforms-­lives Tecnológico de Monterrey. (2023c). Report of the project consolidation of Tec21. Author. Treffinger, D. J., Isaksen, S. G., & Dorval, B. K. (1996). Creative problem solving: An overview. In M. A. Runco (Ed.), Problem finding, problem solving, and creativity (pp. 223–235). Ablex. Vice-Rectory of Educational Innovation and Academic Regulations. (n.d.). Degree in design. Tecnológico de Monterrey. Retrieved March 7, 2023, from https://samp.itesm.mx/Programas/ VistaPrograma?clave=LDI19&modoVista=Default&idioma=ES&cols=0 Weber, R., & Crocker, J. (1983). Cognitive processes in the revision of stereotypic beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 961–977. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-­3514.45.5.961 Worwood, M., & Plucker, J. A. (2017). Domain generality and specificity in creative design thinking. In F. Darbellay, Z. Moody, & T. Lubart (Eds.), Creativity, design thinking and interdisciplinarity (pp. 83–97). Springer Nature Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­981-­10-­7524-­7_6

Chapter 17

Think Globally, Create Locally Mark A. Runco

Transformational capacities have been recognized in quite a few theories of creativity, going back several decades. The recent suggestion that transformations are associated specifically with social benefit and the common good (Sternberg & Karami, this volume) is timely and compelling. The idea of transformational creativity represents a useful position, especially considering the severity of the problems currently facing humanity. This chapter starts with a brief look back at previous theories of the transformations that have been associated with the creative process. Although they were of different kinds, and not always concerned with broad social impact, they may hint at how to best utilize creativity to that end. Research on cognitive transformations is reviewed, followed by theories that have recognized transformations as part of moral creativity. Next, this chapter explores the theories and research on creative problem finding. Implications for the common good are explored noted throughout the chapter.

Cognitive Transformations Many people point to J. P. Guilford (1950) as central in bringing creativity to the social and behavioral sciences. He certainly does deserve a great deal of credit. There were criticisms of his Structure of Intellect model, the most convincing of which identified questionable statistical (factor analytic) methods (Horn, 1967; Horn & Knapp, 1973). Nonetheless, his work had an enormous impact. His distinguishing between divergent and convergent thinking has proven to be especially helpful. (Details can be found in the Special Issue of the Creativity Research Journal M. A. Runco (*) Southern Oregon University, Ashland, OR, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2024 R. J. Sternberg, S. Karami (eds.), Transformational Creativity, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-51590-3_17

245

246

M. A. Runco

that was released on the 50th anniversary of Guilford’s Presidential Address to the American Psychological Association; Plucker, 2001.) Guilford included transformations in his SOI model, and in his last publication he actually wrote, “from an exploratory study … it could be concluded that transformation abilities are more important than divergent-production abilities in creative thinking” (p. 75). This is quite a claim, given how much attention is given to divergent thinking in the creativity research (Runco & Acar, 2019 for a review). Others also emphasized transformational cognitive abilities. Feldman et  al. (1972), for example, described the “transformational power” of ideas. They defined transformational power as “the extent to which a given response [an idea] represents the production of new forms rather than improves upon existing forms, the extent to which the apparent constraints of the stimulus situation are overcome, but overcome in a highly appropriate fashion, and the extent to which the product generates additional thoughts in the observer” (p. 336). Feldman et al. reported that about 15% of the original ideas produced in their sample of participants had transformational power. Note that this is the percentage within the sample of original ideas, not all ideas. Also noteworthy is that, in this investigation, ideas with transformational power were identified by judges, so there was certainly some subjectivity. Inter-rater agreement was approximately 80%. Jackson and Messick (1965) had previously pointed to transformational power, but they were interested in criteria of creativity that could be used when evaluating products and not in working with ideas. Runco (1996) outlined a theory of personal creativity, which includes a cognitive transformational capacity. This is called a theory of personal creativity because a key premise is that individuals may be creative even if they do not share their ideas and solutions with anyone else. There may be no product, other than the individual’s new understanding of his or her experience. The transformations are cognitive. They provide the individual with a new interpretation of his or her experience. Each interpretation is created by the individual. This perspective is much like Piaget’s (1976) view that “to understand is to invent.” Personal creativity also involves discretion and intentions. Discretion is involved because individuals can have original ideas that are not useful and may be inappropriate, but if the individuals exercise discretion, they will invest their energy into useful ideas and interpretations and disregard everything else. This description of discretion fits well with the view of transformation that emphasizes the common good (Sternberg, 2021). It implies that an individual’s transformations begin as personal interpretations but may eventually contribute to the social good, if the individual exercises discretion such that prosocial choices made. In other words, what an individual does becomes social only following certain decisions and the exercise of discretion. Discretion expresses the individual’s intentions. More will be said about intentions below. The theory of personal creativity was developed in response to social theories of creativity (Runco, 1995). These theories often claim that there is no creativity unless it is socially recognized. Csikszentmihalyi (1990), for example, described creativity as starting with an individual but requiring acceptance by both the domain and eventually the field. Even more extreme views have been presented by Kasof (1995) and

17  Think Globally, Create Locally

247

Glaveanu (2010). Kasof went so far as to suggest that one of the most important skills for a creator is impression management. With impression management, a creator can convince an audience that something is creative. This is a questionable suggestion. Time invested in impression management is time taken away from actual creative work. The debate about personal vs. social creativity concerns how creativity is defined, not how it might be expressed. The theory of personal creativity posits that something can be creative even if it is not shared and if there is no social recognition (Runco, 1995, 2020). That does not mean that it is never expressed. The individual might exercise personal discretion and, at some point, express creativity in the social domain. Hopefully this will happen with great regularity! And hopefully, it will be directed toward the common good. Educators might target this kind of discretion and creativity.

Moral Creativity Several other theories describe how creativity can be used for social benefit. Some of these theories point specifically at transformation as part of the process. There is, for example, a strand in the creativity research that focuses on benevolent creativity. To be completely accurate, most research on this topic is slightly broader and also mentions malevolent creativity, which McLaren (1993) labeled “the dark side” (cf. Cropley et al., 2010; Runco, 1993). Sternberg and Karami (this volume) offered a refinement with the term malignant creativity used for “harmful, toxic, and often malevolent” behavior. Incidentally, there seems to be more research on the dark side than there is on benevolent creativity, probably because of the salience of the former (Runco, 2022). There are exceptions. Consider, for instance, Schwebel’s (1993) contribution to the special issue of the Creativity Research Journal that was devoted to “moral creativity” (Gruber & Wallace, 1993). Schwebel suggested that, “moral creativity in the arts is defined as the conscious transformation of moral values into artistic products. Artistic revolutions, occasioned when conventional art is inadequate to satisfy human needs, are associated with moral creativity” (p.  65, emphasis added). Piechowski (1993) also contributed to that Special Issue and proposed, “two principles emerge in individuals who have undergone far-reaching inner transformation. One is the principle of nonseparateness, a transpersonal perspective in which individuals are seen not in isolation but as a part of a larger whole, as cells in one body of humanity. The other is the principle of inner peace as a necessary condition of world peace. These two principles are logically linked.” (p. 92). Intriguingly, Piechowski (1993) quoted Frick (1987): “the turning points in inner growth are symbolic transformations powered by ‘a creative process within the person’” (p. 97). This suggests a surprising direction of effect. Instead of transformation being a process that may lead to creative insights, it may work the other way around, with transformations resulting from a creative process. Presumably, both

248

M. A. Runco

directions are possible. This is a research question for the future, as is the relationship of inner transformations with social transformations. Transformation was also explicitly used by Feldman et al. (1994) in their volume exploring creativity’s role in Changing the World. Like Runco (1996), Feldman et al. recognized the role of intentions in the creative process when it is used for common good. In particular, they described individuals who “believe in the possibility of making changes to better achieve our [human] ends” (p.  311), which implies a kind of transformation for social benefit. Even more clearly relevant is their description of how some individuals “imagine changes that might actually be brought into existence and placed into the crafted world of human culture … [this] is what must occur for creativity to be possible. This kind of thinking could only occur if it is pushed by a ‘transformational imperative’ born of unconscious experience of the power to bring about changes beyond current reality constraints” (pp. 32–33). There may be more on malevolent creativity than benevolent creativity in the literature, but the examples presented here show that some thought has been given on the latter. One of my contributions to the moral creativity literature suggested that there is no such thing as the “dark side to creativity” (Runco, 2010). My view was based on the premise that malevolent and malignant creativity are not reflections of a special kind of cognition. Instead, one kind of creative cognition is used in all creative efforts, including both the benevolent and malevolent. The difference is in the values and the intentions of the individual. These direct creative cognition in one direction or another. If true, there are clear implications for supporting the creativity that is used for the common good. Educators, for example, might keep in mind that there is no dark side. There is, as just noted, one creative process, which can be directed toward malevolence or benevolence. Creativity is directed one way or another by the values held and by the choices made by the individual. Choice and decision making play a very important role in creative efforts, as emphasized by Albert (1996), Runco et al. (1999), and Sternberg (2000). Albert put it this way: Creativity begins with and is expressed through the decisions one makes, not through the particular media used or the products generated … An individual’s knowledge of self and particular aspects of his or her world is the ultimate medium of creative behavior, for knowledge determines decisions as much as opportunities. In fact, it is on the basis of one’s knowledge that one can perceive and identify one’s opportunities. To the extent that deliberate efforts and decisions have to be made in career choices and performances, then to that degree one can say that personalized knowledge is a major component of creative and eminence-achieving work. (p. 19)

It is quite possible that wisdom is important in directing the creative process as well. Fortunately there are experts on that topic contributing to this same volume (e.g., Bluck & Cogdill-Richardson, 2024; Kallio & Ek, 2024). My own modest view defines wisdom as an appreciation of things before they are lost (Runco, 2023). This view, although simple, does apply well to some of the issues facing society, including the climate crisis. Creative solutions are needed for the climate crisis now, before it is too late.

17  Think Globally, Create Locally

249

Creative Problem Finding We need more than just creative solutions. There is also a need for what is usually labeled problem finding. This is an umbrella term that includes problem formulation, problem identification, problem construction, and problem discovery (Alabbasi et al., 2020; Csikszentmihalyi, 1990; Mumford et al., 1996; Runco, 1994). The role of transformations is quite clear in problem definition, and perhaps clearer in problem redefinition. It is one thing to identify a problem, which is the most literal kind of problem finding. It is another thing to define a problem after it has been identified. This may occur to ensure that creative solutions, rather than conventional or mundane solutions, can be found. Often problems need to be redefined after initial solutions are tested. Redefinition is likely to involve a kind of problem transformation. Many famous creators (e.g., Albert Einstein) have acknowledged the importance of problem finding for their creative accomplishments. Root-Bernstein studied MacArthur Award winners and found what he called synscientio, a term derived from synesthesia and scientia (to know). He used synscientio to describe the transformation of a problem into “some internalized fantasy of a visual, kinesthetic, tactile or combined sensual form” and the change of an “insight into an expression, typically verbal, mathematical, or another shared symbol system.” Csikszentmihalyi (1970) demonstrated that it was possible to experimentally investigate problem finding, or what he called “problem discovery.” He observed artists working in studios and found that some of them took a great deal of time before they actually started painting. These same artists were the ones whose work was rated as more creative, and they were the ones who made a career out of art (not changing careers after graduating). They made the most money from art and received the most awards for their art–even 18 years after finishing art school. My own empirical work on this topic was psychometric and focused on problem generation (Carson & Runco, 1999; Okuda et al., 1991). This label is apt because my colleagues and I collected data using an adaptation of a divergent thinking test; but unlike typical tests of this sort, in the problem generation test, examinees did not generate solutions. Instead, they produced problems. Like all divergent thinking tasks, they were free to produce a large number of ideas, and hopefully to do so in an original and flexible fashion. Participants in the research were asked things like, “list as many problems as you can that might occur at work,” “that might be experienced at home,” “that might occur in relationships.” Scores from this problem generation task were reliable and independent of standard divergent thinking test scores. This suggests that, at least among our samples of research participants, problem finding may involve skills that are not involved in problem solving. Obviously, the problem generation task does not get at problem finding per se, given that participants were presented with a task. They were generating ideas about possible problems that had been suggested to them. This research was done some time ago and we did not ask examinees about problems that face society as a whole. If this

250

M. A. Runco

research were to be replicated today, and questions asked about societal issues, no doubt the concerns about climate, sustainability, and democracy would be voiced. Guilford’s work can again be cited. That is because Bachelor and Michael (1991) used his data in a reanalysis that predicted higher order factors among the various Structure of Intellect test scores. Bachelor and Michael concluded that: Of particular psychological importance to the study of creativity was the empirical demonstration … of two factors not associated with divergent production, namely sensitivity to problems and redefinition … Redefinition, or flexibility of closure, constitutes the convergent production of figural. semantic, or symbolic transformations … In the instance of semantic material, one would be given a familiar object … and then be required to generate new information to be used for a unique and single purpose or for the attainment of a specific objective in an almost totally unfamiliar or strange context (as in using a guitar string to slice a piece of cake or cheese in the absence of a knife).

Guilford himself referred to divergent production instead of divergent thinking. What is most relevant in the quotation above is the fact that sensitivity to problems– a part of problem finding—was found to be a higher order factor. Bachelor and Michael also supported the idea given above that problem redefinition represents a kind of transformation. Problems are often transformed such that they can be solved. Sometimes the transformation involves the way the problem is represented. A verbal problem might, for example, be transformed into a visual problem. This kind of transformation often suggests new possibilities. One of the most dramatic transformations involves a merger of one’s self with what is outside of the self. In other words, there is a merger of the subjective with the objective. Barron (1995) went into detail about this sort of merger and its benefits for creative problem solving. He suggested that ego strength was required.

Ego Strength and Tolerance Ego strength might also be required for the transformation of ideas such that they are available to others besides the creator him- or herself. This follows from the fact that creative ideas are by definition original (Runco & Jaeger, 2012). They are uncommon and probably unconventional, and as such, they may surprise an audience. There is risk for the creator, precisely because the idea being shared is original. A creator cannot predict how an audience will react. Sharing a common, conventional idea is not risky. A person can predict how an audience will react. Not so with a creative idea. To share a creative (and original) idea may require ego strength, in that the creator must disregard how the audience reacts. Otherwise, the risk may inhibit the sharing of the idea. Creative ideas might never see the light of day. This logic presumably applies to solutions to social problems just as it does to ideas more generally. Ego strength might be targeted in a classroom if we want students to express their creative ideas when they have them.

17  Think Globally, Create Locally

251

The other side of this is tolerance. Perhaps something can also be done such that society is more accepting of what Barron (1993) called weirdness, or at least, more tolerant of diversity and new ideas. Tolerance is one of the Three Ts that characterize creative settings (Florida & Gabe, in press). The others are Talent and Technology. The point is that creative thinking, including the kind that may be directed at the common good, requires both a supply of creative ideas and an appreciation on the demand side, which includes the audience, society as a whole. Ego strength is important for the former and tolerance is important for the latter.

Discussion This chapter identified several things that may influence what Sternberg and Karami (2024) have called transformational creativity. Decision making and discretion, intentions, problem finding (and problem definition), and ego strength each play a role in the creative process, and each may contribute to the transformations that would support the common good. The central idea in this chapter is that, even if the primary concern is the common good, personal processes are critically important, especially initially. With this in mind several kinds of intrapersonal transformations were described, including the interpretations that are at the heart of the theory of personal creativity (Runco, 1996, 2020). Interpretations are constructed by individuals and lead to new understandings and insights. If the intentions respect the common good and discretion favors the same, the insights may be transformed into something with social benefit. The idea that one kind of transformation is intrapersonal—and may be creative and could eventually lead to transformation of society—is largely consistent with Csikszentmihalyi’s (1990) systems theory. It also starts with an individual but requires recognition by a domain and eventually a field. Unlike Csikzentmihalyi’s system model, in the theory of personal creativity, there is creativity before there is social recognition. Often, as is the case in acts of everyday creativity (Runco & Richards, 1998), there never is social recognition. Hence the suggestion in this chapter that creative transformations of society toward the common good start with personal creativity. Certainly both intra- and interpersonal transformations are involved in progress toward the common good. Runco and Beghetto (2018) described how both are involved in one important domain, namely, education. They described how students might think creatively and construct their own understandings. For Piaget (1976), this sort of thinking is vital for authentic leaning. Without the personal construction of meaning, a student at best merely memorizes information in a rote fashion, and that kind of learning does not generalize well at all. The unique thing about the proposal of Runco and Beghetto is that the student’s creativity is just the first creative act. For an educator to understand and appreciate the student’s original idea, the educator must also construct meaning for him- or herself. Thus, there is a creator (in this case, a student) who shares an original idea, and then an audience (in this

252

M. A. Runco

case, an educator), who must be creative to construct his or her own interpretation of the student’s idea. The role of intra- and interpersonal creative processes is not limited to students and teachers. It would be involved any time one individual proposes a new idea. It is important to support personal creativity, even if the social implications of an individual’s creative insights have not yet been drawn out. Simplifying, the model used in this chapter suggests that creativity for the common good requires, first, creative ideas, and second, an implementation of them in the public setting. The first of these may be entirely personal. This is a bit different from a view where support for the common hinges on social exercises. An advantage of recognizing two stages (one personal, then a public implementation) follows from observations that sometimes creativity is inhibited by social exchanges (Rickards & Jones, 1991; Runco et al., 2016). This means that creativity may be maximized if there are opportunities for individuals to work alone, without social feedback. The social implementation can come later. Implementation is, incidentally, the last stage in some stage models of the creative process (Runco, 2023). These usually begin with problem finding and end with verification and implementation. There are practical implications involving problem finding as well, and here the distinction between benevolence and malevolence comes into sharp relief. Not long ago, an essay on problem definition described how problem finding allowed malevolent political creativity (Runco, 2019). This position was developed after observing the GOP in the USA express malevolent creativity. They often publicize new problems facing the USA, but even a superficial examination shows that these are not real problems. Critical Race Theory, known as CRT, for example, was not a part of primary education, but the GOP said that it was, and certain segments of society believed that there was indeed a serious problem. The GOP is creative, with original ideas, and they are finding new problems, but it is mostly malignant, malevolent, and unrealistic. Some of this may be distraction. By pointing to fabricated problems, the GOP may distract some voters from real problems (e.g., the climate crisis, voter disenfranchisement). Practical wisdom should allow voters to recognize the pseudo-problems as mere distractions. Suggestions for future research were mentioned above (e.g., the direction of effect between creativity and cognitive transformations and the relationship of personal transformations with social implementations involving transformations). Further work of all sorts should be directed at creativity for the common good. It seems that up until now, there has been more work on the dark side than on positive, benevolent creativity, probably because of the salience of malevolence. Efforts such at the present volume may remedy the situation and draw attention to the benefits of transformational creativity.

17  Think Globally, Create Locally

253

References Alabbasi, A. M. A., Paek, S. H., Cramond, B., & Runco, M. A. (2020). Problem finding and creativity: A meta-analytic review. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 14, 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000194 Albert, R. S. (1996). What the study of eminence can teach us. Creativity Research Journal, 9, 307–315. Bachelor, P., & Michael, W.  B. (1991). Higher order factors of creativity within Guilford’s structure-­ of-intellect model: A re-analysis of a fifty-three variable data base. Creativity Research Journal, 4, 157–175. Barron, F. (1993). Controlled weirdness. Psychological Inquiry, 4, 182–184. Barron, F. (1995). No Rootless flower: An Ecology of Creativity. Hampton Press. Bluck, S., & Cogdill-Richardson, K. (2024). The life story as the nexus of creativity and wisdom. In R. J. Sternberg & S. Karami (Eds.), Transformational creativity. Palgrave Macmillan. Carson, D. K., & Runco, M. A. (1999). Creative problem solving and problem finding in young adults: Interconnections with stress, hassles, and coping abilities. Journal of Creative Behavior, 33, 167–190. Cropley, D. H., Cropley, A. J., Kaufman, J. C., & Runco, M. A. (Eds.). (2010). The dark side of creativity. Cambridge University Press. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). The domain of creativity. In M. A. Runco & R. S. Albert (Eds.), Theories of creativity (pp. 190–212). Sage. Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Getzels, J. W. (1970). Concern for discovery: An attitudinal component of creative production. Journal of Personality, 38, D. H. Cropley, A. J. Cropley, J. C. Kaufman, & M. A. Runco (Eds.), The dark side of creativity (pp. 15–32). New York: Cambridge University Press. Feldman, D., Maninan, B. M., & Hartfeldt, S. D. (1972). Transformational power as a possible index of creativity. Psychological Reports, 30, 335–338. Feldman, D. H., Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Gardner, H. (1994). A framework for the study of creativity. In D. H. Feldman, M. Csikszentmihalyi, & H. Gardner (Eds.), Changing the world. A framework for the study of creativity. Praeger. Florida, R., & Gabe, T. (in press). Assessing the Rise and Geography of the Creative Economy. In M. A. Runco & S. Acar (Eds.), Handbook of creativity assessment. Elgar. Frick, W. B. (1987). The symbolic growth experience: Paradigm for humanistic-existential learning theory. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 27, 406–423. Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5, 444–454. Glaveanu, V.  P. (2010). Creativity as cultural participation. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 41(1), 48–67. Gruber, H. E., & Wallace, D. (Eds.). (1993). Creativity in the moral domain. Creativity Research Journal, 6, 1–200. Horn, J. L. (1967). On subjectivity in factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 27(4), 811–820. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446702700404 Horn, J. L., & Knapp, J. R. (1973). On the subjective character of the empirical base of Guilford’s structure-of-intellect model. Psychological Bulletin, 80, 33–43. Jackson, P. W., & Messick, S. (1965). The person, the product and the response: Conceptual problems in the assessment of creativity. Journal of Personality, 33, 1–19. Kallio, E. K., & Ek, T. (2024). Holistic wisdom education – Towards transformational creativity. In R. J. Sternberg & S. Karami (Eds.), Transformational creativity. Palgrave Macmillan. Kasof, J. (1995). Explaining creativity: The attributional perspective. Creativity Research Journal, 8, 311–366. McLaren, R. B. (1993). The dark side of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 6, 137–144. Mumford, M. D., Baughman, W. A., Threlfall, K. V., Supinski, E. P., & Costanza, D. P. (1996). Process-based measures of creative problem-solving skills: I. Problem construction. Creativity Research Journal, 9, 63–76.

254

M. A. Runco

Okuda, S. M., Runco, M. A., & Berger, D. E. (1991). Creativity and the finding and solving of real-world problems. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 9, 45–53. Piaget, J. (1976). To understand is to invent. Penguin. Piechowski, M. M. (1993). Is inner transformation a creative process? Creativity Research Journal, 6(1-2), 89–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419309534468 Plucker, J.  A. (2001). Introduction to the special issue: Commemorating Guilford’s 1950 presidential address. Creativity Research Journal, 13(3-4), 247. https://doi.org/10.1207/ S15326934CRJ1334_02 Rickards, T., & Jones, L.  J. (1991). Toward the identification of situational barriers to creative behaviors: The development of a self-report inventory. Creativity Research Journal, 4, 303–316. Runco, M. A. (1993). Moral creativity: Intentional and unconventional. Creativity Research Journal, 6, 17–28. Runco, M. A. (Ed.). (1994). Problem finding, problem solving, and creativity. Ablex. Runco, M. A. (1995). Insight for creativity, expression for impact. Creativity Research Journal, 8, 377–390. Runco, M. A. (1996). Personal creativity: Definition and developmental issues. New Directions for Child Development, 72(Summer), 3–30. Runco, M. A. (2010). Creativity has no dark side. In D. H. Cropley, A. J. Cropley, J. C. Kaufman, & M. A. Runco (Eds.), The dark side of creativity (pp. 15–32). Cambridge University Press. Runco, M. A. (2019). Political examples of a dark side of creativity and the impact on education. In C. Mullen (Ed.), Creativity under duress in education (pp. 399–411). Springer. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-­3-­319-­90272-­2_21 Runco, M. A. (2020). Personal creativity. In M. A. Runco & S. R. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity (3rd ed.). Elsevier. Runco, M. A. (2022). Positive creativity and the intentions, discretion, problem finding, and divergent thinking that support it can be encouraged in the classroom. Educational Science, 12(5), 340. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12050340 Runco, M. A. (2023). Creativity: Research, development, and practice (3rd ed.). Academic Press. Runco, M. A., & Acar, S. (2019). Divergent thinking. In J. C. Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 224–253). Cambridge University Press. Runco, M. A., Acar, S., Campbell, W. K., Jaeger, G., McCain, J., & Gentile, B. (2016). Comparisons of the creative class and regional creativity with perceptions of community support and community barriers. Business Creativity and the Creative Economy, 2, 83–92. Runco, M.  A., & Beghetto, R. (2018). Primary and secondary creativity. Current Opinion in Behavior Science, 27, 7–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2018.08.011 Runco, M.  A., & Jaeger, G. (2012). The standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 24, 92–96. Runco, M. A., Johnson, D., & Gaynor, J. R. (1999). The judgmental bases of creativity and implications for the study of gifted youth. In A.  Fishkin, B.  Cramond, & P.  Olszewski-Kubilius (Eds.), Investigating creativity in youth: Research and methods (pp. 113–141). Hampton Press. Runco, M.  A., & Richards, R. (Eds.). (1998). Eminent creativity, everyday creativity, and health. Ablex. Schwebel, M. (1993). Moral creativity as artistic transformation. Creativity Research Journal, 6, 65–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419309534466 Sternberg, R. J. (2000). Creativity is a decision. In A. L. Costa (Ed.), Teaching for intelligence II (pp. 85–106). Skylight Training and Publishing. Sternberg, R. J. (2021). Transformational creativity: The link between creativity, wisdom, and the solution of global problems. Philosophies, 6, 75. https://doi.org/10.3390/philosophies6030075 Sternberg, R.  J., & Karami, S. (2024). Why transformational creativity? In R.  J. Sternberg & S. Karami (Eds.), Transformational creativity. Palgrave Macmillan.

Chapter 18

Transformational Creative Genius: Four Wise Considerations of Three Definitions Dean Keith Simonton

Albert Einstein is often taken as a prototypical creative genius. Certainly his eq. E = mc2 is not only one of the most famous in world history, but also one of the most potent as the theoretical basis for the atomic bomb and nuclear energy. After appearing on the cover of Time Magazine more than once, he was decisively named “Person of the Century” on the magazine’s cover that closed out the millennium. Yet can Einstein also be considered a transformational creative genius? If not, why not? What was he missing? These specific questions lead to more general issues. What does it take to display transformational creativity? Can such creativity appear at everyday levels or does it require genius of some kind? Is creative genius a necessary but not sufficient foundation for transformational creativity? These questions drive this chapter. The chapter begins with three overlapping definitions and then (wisely) considers four implications of those definitions.

Three Definitions The three definitions are presented below go from the conceptually general and historically most ancient to the most specific and contemporary: genius, creative genius, and transformational creative genius.

D. K. Simonton (*) University of California, Davis, Davis, CA, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2024 R. J. Sternberg, S. Karami (eds.), Transformational Creativity, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-51590-3_18

255

256

D. K. Simonton

Genius The term genius boasts an etymology that dates back to ancient Roman mythology. Each male was born with a protective spirit or guardian angel called his genius (whereas each female was born with a corresponding juno). Over the centuries this concept broadened to assume more naturalistic meanings. For instance, a distinctive talent might be referred to as a person’s genius, such as having a genius for conversation (plus becoming generic rather than gender specific). This talent connection eventually evolved into a meaning closer to today’s conception. For example, in 1790 the philosopher Immanuel Kant defined genius as an individual with the innate talent for generating products that were both original and exemplary, where the latter requirement meant that the products provided models worthy of imitation by others—highly admired, in a word. Kant’s definition is echoed in the first monograph specifically dedicated to the scientific study of genius, namely, Francis Galton’s, 1869 Hereditary Genius. Here, genius is conceived in terms of an enduring reputation as assessed by “the opinion of contemporaries, revised by posterity … the reputation of a leader of opinion, of an originator, of a man [or woman] to whom the world deliberately acknowledges itself largely indebted” (Galton, 1892/1972, p. 77). Moreover, Galton incorporated the notion of talent into his conception, but substituted the term “natural ability.” In his view, those “who achieve eminence, and those who are naturally capable, are, to a large extent, identical” (p. 78). The Kant-Galton take on genius shows up in the standard dictionaries. To illustrate, one dictionary defines genius as “Native intellectual power of an exalted type, such as is attributed to those who are esteemed greatest in any department of art, speculation, or practice; instinctive and extraordinary capacity for imaginative creation, original thought, invention, or discovery” (American Heritage Electronic Dictionary, 1992). This definition’s opening phrase appears to endorse Galton’s position that high natural ability constitutes an essential part of genius. But does it? This assumed equivalence has two problems. First, this position takes as a given what should be considered an empirical question: Is genius born or made? Use of terms like “talent,” “natural,” “native” and “instinctive” all imply the former. Yet even Galton (1874) was later obliged to admit that “nurture” may play a big role alongside “nature,” that is, various environmental factors may also influence the development of genius. Hence, it may be better to leave this assumption out of a scientific definition. The impact of nature on genius should be investigated, not presumed, by bringing modern behavioral genetics to bear on the issue (see, e.g., Lykken, 1998; Simonton, 2008). Second, the above dictionary definition also posits that genius must exhibit extremely high intelligence. This presumption shows up even more explicitly in an alternative definition found in the same dictionary, where a genius is “a person who has an exceptionally high intelligence quotient, typically above 140” (American Heritage Electronic Dictionary, 1992). Again, it’s better to omit this feature of the definition, leaving it as an empirical question needing research rather than an a priori stipulation. That said, it must be recognized that genius is most commonly

18  Transformational Creative Genius: Four Wise Considerations of Three Definitions

257

associated with achievement domains that require a considerable amount of intellectual power. Although Galton (1869) included exceptional athletes among his “geniuses,” that inclusion was a carryover from his earlier use of the term “talent” (Galton, 1865). His lists of “genius” wrestlers and rowers look misplaced next to his lists of high-impact scientists, artists, politicians, and commanders. In the latter domains, appreciable intelligence is required to acquire the requisite knowledge and skills—the domain-specific expertise—for exceptional achievement. Even so, the necessary intelligence may not equate to IQ 140 or higher and hence not count as “genius level” according to the second dictionary definition (see, e.g., Cox, 1926; Roe, 1953; Simonton, 2008). Indeed, eminent military leaders often have IQs below that threshold (Simonton & Song, 2009). In contrast, one aspect of the first dictionary definition should be rendered more explicit: Individuals merit the designation “genius” only if they contribute to a domain that is valued by the culture in which they reside. A domain’s positive cultural value is manifested in major awards, honors, commemoratives, grants, patronage, appointments, archives, museums, conservatories, and other forms of societal support and recognition. On the other side, a domain is deprecated when it is condemned by laws and social norms. That’s why creators and leaders can be styled geniuses, but not assassins, terrorists, serial killers, and drug lords. The impact of the latter group is destructive rather than constructive with respect to the larger society in which these persons live. Thus, the phrase “evil genius” is an oxymoron. Taking the above discussion under consideration, this chapter will adopt the following definition: A genius is a person who makes original, exemplary, and enduring contributions to domains of achievement that are both intellectually demanding and culturally valued. Here the three requisite qualities of the contributions depend on Galton’s “opinion of contemporaries, revised by posterity” involving colleagues, connoisseurs, consumers, critics, scholars, historians, etc. Naturally, the specific judges involved in these evaluations differ according to the achievement domain. It should be noted that genius is implicitly a quantitative rather than a qualitative characteristic because all of the components of the definition are necessarily quantitative rather than qualitative. Certainly, the degree to which any given contribution is original, exemplary, or enduring varies immensely, as does the number of contributions that any given genius might make. Likewise, the extent to which a given domain is intellectually demanding or culturally valued also varies greatly. To provide one example of the latter variation, calligraphy as an art form is far more highly esteemed in Islamic and Far Eastern civilizations than it is in Western civilization. Needless to say, any given genius might manifest a different mix of these various components, implying that genius is by no means homogeneous. That implication harks back to the ancient meaning of the word insofar as each person’s genius was then considered to be highly individualized. In this sense, genius is sui generis. Einstein’s genius differed not only from that of Pablo Picasso, Igor Stravinsky, Martha Graham, and other comparably illustrious contemporaries, but also from his fellow Nobel Laureates in Physics, like Niels Bohr or Marie Curie.

258

D. K. Simonton

Creative Genius Unlike genius, creativity is a far more recent term. For instance, according to Google Ngram, “creativity” didn’t begin to appear until the mid-twentieth century, becoming ever more frequent in the 1960s. In fact, Guilford (1950) is often credited with initiating research interest in this topic. Perhaps because of this relative newness, definitions of creativity remain all over the place (Plucker et al., 2004). Although many researchers might give lip service to the “standard definition,” which says that creative ideas are both original and effective in some way (Runco & Jaeger, 2012), in practice the field lacks consensus about who is judging an idea’s originality and effectiveness (e.g., Csikszentmihalyi, 2014; Simonton, 2018). Do the creators themselves make a personal assessment or is some social consensus required, perhaps rendering the Eureka or Ah-hah experience meaningless? And if the latter, how extensive and coherent must that consensus be? In judging cinematic creativity, for example, the available assessors are not only diverse—film critics, moviegoers, industry professionals, and motion picture historians—but also often disagree regarding the masterworks, the humdrum, and the bombs (Simonton, 2011). Any avid consumer can easily come up with their own favorite examples of where they contest critic reviews, film awards, and perhaps cinema historians. Think Citizen Kane! Making matters even worse, not all creativity researchers agree on the two core criteria. On the one hand, some would drop the effectiveness requirement, however defined (whether utility, meaningfulness, value, effectiveness, relevance, etc.; e.g., Weisberg, 2015). On the other hand, some would add another criterion to the first two, such as surprise or non-obviousness (i.e., the idea cannot be easily assimilated by existing knowledge but rather requires a more thorough accommodation via new knowledge structures; cf. Boden, 2004; Shogenji, 2021; Simonton, 2012; Tsao et al., 2019). Although some might pretend that a precise definition is not necessary for research to proceed, that belief cannot be valid. As a case in point, adding the third criterion of surprise renders Campbell’s (1960) blind-variation and selective-­ retention theory (BVSR) not only more empirically plausible but also more logically probable (Simonton, 2023). Briefly put, BVSR holds that creativity requires the generation of ideas or responses without prior knowledge of their utilities— whether or not they will actually work. Moreover, whether or not BVSR theory holds then determines the researcher’s expectations regarding the cognitive, personality, developmental, and social factors underlying creativity. Indeed, one striking implication is that there’s no such thing as a creative process or procedure (see also Baer, 2022). Instead, there exist a multitude of mechanisms that generate possibilities, which must then undergo evaluation for their relative utilities. Yet these generating mechanisms may not even appear “creative,” such as simple trial and error (see also Weisberg, 2014, who argues for the creativity of “ordinary thinking”). Accordingly, the neuroscience of creativity constitutes a dead-end enterprise without first developing a comprehensive typology of variation processes and procedures (e.g., Dietrich, 2019). In sum, creativity researchers have totally ignored

18  Transformational Creative Genius: Four Wise Considerations of Three Definitions

259

Voltaire’s famous admonition that before a meaningful conversation is even possible it is first necessary to “define your terms.” Consequently, for several decades, such researchers have been talking past each other without advancing the scientific status of their field. As if all that were not complicated enough, creativity researchers have conceived the phenomenon from multiple perspectives, and even those perspectives are multiply conceived (e.g., Glăveanu, 2013; Rhodes, 1961; Sternberg & Karami, 2022). A classic example is the distinction between little-c or “everyday” creativity and Big-C or “genius” creativity (Luckenbach, 1986; Simonton, 2013), to which has been added mini-c and pro-c (Kaufman & Beghetto, 2009). Happily, because our interest here concerns genius-grade creativity, the required definition can just modify the earlier definition, inserting the adjective “creative” in the two most appropriate places: A creative genius is a person who makes original, exemplary, and enduring contributions to domains of creative achievement that are both intellectually demanding and culturally valued. Although creative domains have been traditionally defined in line with the Greek Muses, modern civilizations have added new domains to the list, such as cinema—the “seventh art.” Once more, the various components of this definition are implicitly quantitative in nature. This feature is shown in Table 18.1. The variation in each component is phenomenal. It must also be repeated that the variation is largely independent across the components. Any given creative genius may exhibit a distinctive profile, such as making supremely original contributions that are less exemplary or enduring (e.g., “shock artists”). Or the contributions may be made to an intellectually demanding Table 18.1  Implicit quantitative variation in the components of the creative genius definition Definition component Creative genius

Very low Epigones (e.g., Daniele da Volterra “the breeches maker”) Original contribution Most doctoral dissertations in the sciences (e.g., even Einstein’s) Exemplary Shakespeare’s Timon of Athens; contribution Beethoven’s Wellington’s Victory Enduring Darwin’s pangenesis theory of contribution heredity (obsolete in his lifetime) Number of The “one-hit wonders” (e.g., contributions Pachelbel and his Canon in D) Domain Limericks (e.g., Edward Lear’s The intellectually Book of Nonsense) demanding Domain culturally Crafts (e.g., hand carved statuette valued as accent piece for home décor)

Very high Progenitors (e.g., Michelangelo “the divine one”) Most Nobel Prize winners (e.g., Einstein’s photoelectric effect) Shakespeare’s Hamlet; Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony Darwin’s natural selection theory of evolution (still prevails today) The prolific: many masterpieces in multiple genres (e.g., Mozart) Philosophy (e.g., Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Investigations) Monuments (e.g., the Statue of Liberty in New York Harbor)

Note: Creative genius is a quantitative variable that is a weighted function of the other quantitative definition components, which remain to be given operational definitions. The exact nature of that integrative function probably varies across cultures and through time. Domain contrasts are also likely (e.g., originality in the arts versus the sciences; Simonton, 2021)

260

D. K. Simonton

domain that is not necessarily culturally valued—perhaps because the contributions are less accessible to a large audience. Avant-garde music or indie cinema certainly enjoys fewer aficionados than pop music or big-studio blockbusters. One final issue must be addressed before continuing: What happened to the second criterion for creativity in the standard definition? The answer is that it is subsumed by the exemplary component. In fact, the exemplary stipulation also incorporates the surprise criterion, so the definition really encompasses a three-­ criterion creativity definition. What’s different is that we’re now talking about creativity assessed at a consensual level, leaving personal experience aside (e.g., colleagues or consumers don’t care whether the idea was “inspired” but rather whether the idea inspires them). Hence, to count as a work of creative genius, a contribution must satisfy a host of stipulations regarding what makes a work exemplary, and these entail both utility and surprise. The contribution has to work as well as impel evaluators to think about ideas in a new way by a process of collective accommodation rather than assimilation (cf. Kirton, 1976; Kuhn, 1970; Sternberg, 1999). Once Copernicus had demonstrated that the Sun rather than the Earth can more easily be viewed as the center of planetary motions, suddenly the whole cosmos looked different and the underlying physical laws had to radically change. Even the Sun no longer “set” but rather the Earth rotates the observer away from the motionless Sun until the rising horizon totally blocks the view! That’s what made the heliocentric system exemplary. It was not just original but also useful and surprising, paving the way for Galileo’s revolutionary challenges to Aristotelian physics and Ptolemaic astronomy.

Transformational Creative Genius For millennia, the creative genius has carried the major workload for the main contributions that have marked the evolution of human civilizations throughout the world (Murray, 2014). Although humanity could always use more creative geniuses, at least in certain times and places, only recently has it been suggested that something more is needed, namely, more transformational creativity. This suggestion has been persuasively argued by Robert J.  Sternberg (2021). He defines this form of creativity as “creativity deployed to make the world a better place—to make a positive, meaningful, and potentially enduring difference to the world” (p. 6). Sternberg contrasts this guise of creativity with that which “is exhibited primarily as an exchange. The individual is motivated by a reward” where the “reward might be extrinsic—money, awards, fame; or it might be intrinsic—the feeling of a job well done” (p. 5). Although he admits that “People who are transformationally creative often also are transactionally creative—they have paying jobs, like most other people, and they care about their work” the transformationally creative “go beyond transaction—they use their creativity to affect positive change that seeks a common good” (p. 6). Now we look at some comparisons and precautions.

18  Transformational Creative Genius: Four Wise Considerations of Three Definitions

261

Comparisons The question now is how Sternberg’s (2021) conception compares with the earlier definition of creative genius. Close comparison reveals both similarities and differences. First of all, it’s obvious that both the creative genius and the transformational creator must generate original ideas, albeit that requirement is only implicit in the latter case: Creativity is impossible without originality, the one attribute shared by virtually all creativity definitions (Runco & Jaeger, 2012). It is also clear that the enduring nature of the contribution is a factor, even if that quality is potential rather than actual in the case of the transformational creator. The latter individual seeks to produce something enduring but cannot guarantee that will happen because of the shorter time frame in which the creativity is evaluated. Nonetheless, one would hope that potential enduringness would be a necessary but not sufficient basis for actual enduringness. Even if the stipulation of a “positive and meaningful difference” is not explicit in the definition of creative genius, nothing prevents that stipulation from being incorporated into what counts as exemplary. More importantly, both positive and meaningful are implicit in the requirement that the creative genius contribute to a culturally valued domain of creative achievement. It’s difficult to imagine any sociocultural system placing a value on the negative and meaningless (cf. the transient “cynical sensate” cultural mentality in Sorokin, 1937–1941). Has any stable and productive society ever integrated absolute nihilism into its cultural mores? If so, creative genius couldn’t exist, and transformational creativity would likely be impossible as well. Nobody can make contributions to the common good when there’s no prevalent consensus on the common good—or perhaps no agreement that such a desideratum even exists. The concept of the common good might constitute the key demarcation between the creative genius and the transformational creator. The former makes original, exemplary, and enduring contributions to a culturally valued domain, whereas the latter makes positive, meaningful, and potentially enduring contributions to the common good. Yet some culturally valued domains do contribute directly to the common good or at least enjoy a high probability of doing so. Certain specialties in medicine and technology provide obvious instances. Surely Pasteur’s discoveries and Edison’s inventions improved immensely the everyday lives of millions of people throughout the world. Anyone who has gotten a vaccination, drunk pasteurized milk or beer, turned on a light bulb, watched a motion picture, or listened to music on a phonograph (or functional equivalent) has directly experienced the enduring creativity of those two creative geniuses. As a consequence, a prima facie case can be made that transformational creative genius represents a special case of creative genius in general. That leads to the following definition: The transformational creative genius is a creative genius who also satisfies the requirements for transformational creativity by contributing to domains most likely to enhance the common good. Although Sternberg (2021) recognizes the difficulty of defining the common good, at the very minimum it presumably encompasses universal human health and

262

D. K. Simonton

happiness as the ultimate criteria—the “greatest good for the greatest number” standard of utilitarian ethics. That’s implied by Sternberg’s examples. Precautions Some caveats are due however: The common good can sometimes constitute a highly unstable criterion for judging contributions. Two examples follow. 1. Despite the horrors of war, wartime necessities have promoted many inventions that were later judged as beneficial under peacetime conditions. These include ballpoint pens, bug spray, cargo pants, computers, daylight savings time, digital cameras, duct tape, EpiPens, freeze drying, global positioning systems, jerry cans, jeeps, jet engines, paper tissues, penicillin, radar, sanitary napkins, portable X-rays, stainless steel, sun lamps, superglue, trench coats, vegetarian sausages, water purification tablets, and zippers. Sometimes a peacetime invention didn’t become a commonplace item until war facilitated its widespread adoption. Thus, wrist watches were not worn by men until World War I made soldiers realize that they were something more than a woman’s accessory. Only then could everyone conveniently “synchronize their watches.” 2. The passage of time can convert an advantageous discovery or invention into one with decidedly adverse consequences. To illustrate, the physician Dr. Paul Janssen may be easily identified as a transformational creator. After all, he founded a 20,000-employee pharmaceutical company dedicated to advancing modern medicine. The company is now a subsidiary of Johnson and Johnson, where it developed the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine. Among its early products were (a) a drug to reduce menstrual pain, (b) an anti-diarrheal medication, (c) an anti-­psychotic drug that was considered a leap forward in the treatment of schizophrenia, and (d) a potent analgesic that would help those patients for whom even morphine did not work (e.g., “breakthrough” pain suffered by many with terminal cancer). All told, Janssen helped produce dozens of new medications, several belonging in the inventory of essential pharmaceuticals. Not surprisingly, he received many honors, including the Canada Gairdner International Award for exceptional contributions to medical science (often a forerunner to the Nobel Prize for Medicine). The King of Belgium even elevated him to the nobility, granting Janssen the title of Baron. Yet after Janssen passed away, that powerful painkiller became the agent for the ongoing opioid crisis that has already killed tens of thousands. He never knew nor could anticipate the havoc that would be caused by fentanyl. Instead, foremost was the aim to allow dying patients to die in peace.

18  Transformational Creative Genius: Four Wise Considerations of Three Definitions

263

Four Wise Considerations As Sternberg (2021) observed, wisdom entails the capacity to recognize the balance between contrary interests. Given that we necessarily live in a world where nobody can satisfy all of their wants, the wise find the sweet spot between one person’s needs and another’s. The same principle is applicable here. Paradoxically, it may be possible to maximize transformational creativity at the expense of creative genius in a manner that’s detrimental to the wellbeing of the larger society. However good transformational creativity may be, there still can be too much of a good thing. Furthermore, other considerations must put transformational creativity in its proper place in the bigger picture of human welfare. Consider the following four points. First, although creative contributions to culturally valued domains may not enhance the common good in any strict sense, they do enhance the lives of numerous people living within the same sociocultural system. For example, Einstein’s E = mc2, Darwin’s evolutionary theory, Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony, Michelangelo’s Sistine Chapel frescoes, or Shakespeare’s Hamlet may not contribute to the common good as would a cure for cancer, the eradication of poverty, the reversing of climate change, or the outlawing of war, but civilization would still prove a far more impoverished place to live without those and other valued achievements to keep people intellectually stimulated, happily entertained, and deeply moved. Moreover, pleasing one subset of humanity does not necessarily lead to the displeasure of another subset of humanity. For instance, music is appreciated by a very large percentage of human beings, but with tremendous heterogeneity in specific tastes. Yet one person’s preference for rap or country doesn’t have to interfere with another person’s preference for opera or jazz. It’s not a zero-sum game (even for roommates, courtesy of headphones or earbuds). The world remains better off with music, however diverse and hence unshared, than no music at all. And Muzak, the “elevator music” supposedly directed at the common good, may represent nobody’s favorite genre. Second, throwing more creative geniuses at the world’s shared problems doesn’t necessarily guarantee solutions. Despite Edison’s undeniable technological prowess, and his pronounced goal to enhance human welfare, many of his attempted inventions proved outright failures (Simonton, 2015). Perhaps the most dramatic example was his endeavor to extract high-quality iron from low-grade ore: That failure cost him all of the money he had earned from inventing the incandescent light bulb! Often a given problem lacks a solution because the requisite knowledge base is not yet available. Edison’s hard work trying to create a commercially successful electric automobile went to naught because lithium batteries were well into the future—by almost a century. Edison thus wasted considerable time and money developing storage batteries that were doomed to fail. Needless to say, some discoveries or inventions may prove impossible, not only now, but forever. The missing component doesn’t yet exist because it can’t ever exist. For example, controlled nuclear fusion has long been investigated as a virtually unlimited source of energy that would mitigate climate change and perhaps even reduce poverty and war. And

264

D. K. Simonton

yet after more than a half century of development in multiple countries—developments that have attracted some of the best physicists and engineers in the world—a reactor that reliably generates more energy than it consumes remains far from sight. That invention may prove as impossible as the perpetual motion machine. If so, would-be creative geniuses or transformational creators working on that problem are just throwing away their creativity for nothing. Third, in line with what was noted earlier, creativity is by no means a generic ability that can be applied to any given problem (Baer, 2022; Simonton, 2018, 2023). On the contrary, creativity relies on a very large inventory of potential processes and procedures that vary greatly regarding the kinds of problems for which they are best suited (Boden, 2004; Ness, 2013; Roe, 1953). Hence, those whose talents concentrate on creating original, exemplary, and enduring poetry, art, or music are not denying their sociocultural world contributions more directly connected to the common good, such as alleviating cancer, poverty, climate change, or war. The latter problems are best left to those who are better equipped to provide potential solutions—if any such knowledge or skills actually exist. The world is probably a better place letting a sensitive soul write poetry in some remote mountain cabin than having them unhappily labor away in a sterile biomedical lab in the fruitless quest for a cancer cure. They might even compose a poem that helps console someone who just lost a loved one to incurable cancer (Moffat, 1992). Fourth and last, we cannot put all the burden of enhancing the common good on the backs of creative geniuses, transformational or otherwise. Genius takes other forms as well, such as political genius, where the original, exemplary, and enduring contributions are aimed at the world of politics. Too often the failure to augment the common good does not represent a failure of creativity but rather a failure of leadership. Transformational creators may have come up with solutions to major world problems only to see their solutions turned aside by transactional leaders—leaders who are shaping policy to ensure their popularity. Politicians who have opposed taking strong measures to reduce climate change provide a recent example. A lot of impressive scientific creativity was of no avail. Instead, climate scientists were accused of alarmism, even fraud. The irony, of course, is that scientists now are realizing that they probably have underestimated the rate of global warming, including how fast the oceans are expected to rise. Trying to do good science, their initial predictions were on the conservative side. Given the above considerations, humanity’s best bet is probably to encourage a diversified portfolio of creative investments. Some creative geniuses commit themselves to making original, exemplary, and eventually enduring contributions to culturally valued domains that are unlikely to improve the common good, such as calligraphy, while other creative geniuses specifically commit to domains that feature a much higher probability of making such improvements. Meanwhile, the big problem remains how to get political leaders behind the common good.

18  Transformational Creative Genius: Four Wise Considerations of Three Definitions

265

Conclusion It’s now possible to return to the questions raised at this chapter’s outset. To begin with, it should be clear that transformational creativity does not require creative genius because the two constructs do not completely overlap. On the one hand, if a creator makes a potentially enduring contribution to the common good, then they may qualify as transformational, whereas the creative genius must make a contribution that is actually enduring—survives the proverbial “test of time.” On the other hand, if a creator makes a contribution to a culturally valued domain, then they may qualify as a genius even if the domain doesn’t obviously contribute to the common good. Hence, creative genius is a necessary but not sufficient foundation for transformational creative genius. It follows that Einstein, for all his creative genius, may not count as a transformational creator. Admittedly, any creator who manages to invent a practical nuclear fusion reactor will likely satisfy the requirements for a transformational creative genius—an invention theoretically predicated on Einstein’s E = mc2. Yet the latter dependence does not suffice to make Einstein transformational. And how much of that argument is undermined by the atomic and thermonuclear weapons that are also connected to the same formula? After all, in the latter instance, Einstein actually signed the letter that helped launch the Manhattan Project. Still, these historical developments should not detract one iota from Einstein’s iconic status as the “Person of the Century.”

References American Heritage Electronic Dictionary. (1992). (3rd ed.). Houghton Mifflin. Baer, J. (2022). There’s no such thing as creativity: How Plato and 20th century psychology have misled us (Elements in creativity and imagination). Cambridge University Press. https://doi. org/10.1017/9781009064637 Boden, M. A. (2004). The creative mind: Myths & mechanisms (2nd ed.). Routledge. Campbell, D.  T. (1960). Blind variation and selective retention in creative thought as in other knowledge processes. Psychological Review, 67, 380–400. Cox, C. (1926). The early mental traits of three hundred geniuses. Stanford University Press. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2014). The systems model of creativity and its applications. In D. K. Simonton (Ed.), The Wiley handbook of genius (pp. 533–545). Wiley. Dietrich, A. (2019). Types of creativity. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 26, 1–12. https://doi. org/10.3758/s13423-­018-­1517-­7 Galton, F. (1865). Hereditary talent and character. Macmillan’s Magazine, 12, 157–166, 318–327. Galton, F. (1869). Hereditary genius: An inquiry into its laws and consequences. Macmillan. Galton, F. (1972). Hereditary genius: An inquiry into its laws and consequences (2nd ed.). Smith. (Original work published 1892). Galton, F. (1874). English men of science: Their nature and nurture. London: Macmillan. Glăveanu, V. P. (2013). Rewriting the language of creativity: The five A’s framework. Review of General Psychology, 17, 69–81. Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5, 444–454. Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Beyond big and little: The four c model of creativity. Review of General Psychology, 13, 1–13.

266

D. K. Simonton

Kirton, M.  J. (1976). Adaptors and innovators: A description and measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 622–629. Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press. Luckenbach, T. A. (1986). Encouraging ‘little C’ and ‘Big C’ creativity. Research Management, 29, 9–10. Lykken, D. T. (1998). The genetics of genius. In A. Steptoe (Ed.), Genius and the mind: Studies of creativity and temperament in the historical record (pp. 15–37). Oxford University Press. Moffat, M.  J. (Ed.). (1992). In the midst of winter: Selections from the literature of mourning. Vintage Books. Murray, C. (2014). Genius in world civilization. In D. K. Simonton (Ed.), The Wiley handbook of genius (pp. 486–608). Wiley. Ness, R. B. (2013). Genius unmasked. Oxford University Press. Plucker, J.  A., Beghetto, R.  A., & Dow, G.  T. (2004). Why isn’t creativity more important to educational psychologists? Potentials, pitfalls, and future directions in creativity research. Educational Psychologist, 39, 83–96. Rhodes, M. (1961). An analysis of creativity. The Phi Delta Kappan, 42, 305–310. Roe, A. (1953). The making of a scientist. Dodd, Mead. Runco, M., & Jaeger, G.  J. (2012). The standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 21, 92–96. Shogenji, T. (2021). Probability and proximity in surprise. Synthese, 198, 10939–10957. Simonton, D.  K. (2008). Scientific talent, training, and performance: Intellect, personality, and genetic endowment. Review of General Psychology, 12, 28–46. Simonton, D.  K. (2011). Great flicks: Scientific studies of cinematic creativity and aesthetics. Oxford University Press. Simonton, D. K. (2012). Taking the US Patent Office creativity criteria seriously: A quantitative three-criterion definition and its implications. Creativity Research Journal, 24, 97–106. Simonton, D. K. (2013). What is a creative idea? Little-c versus Big-C creativity. In J. Chan & K. Thomas (Eds.), Handbook of research on creativity (pp. 69–83). Edward Elgar. Simonton, D. K. (2015). Thomas Alva Edison’s creative career: The multilayered trajectory of trials, errors, failures, and triumphs. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 9, 2–14. Simonton, D. K. (2018). Defining creativity: Don’t we also need to define what is not creative? Journal of Creative Behavior, 52, 80–90. Simonton, D. K. (2021, August 23). Scientific creativity: Discovery and invention as combinatorial. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 721104. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.721104 Simonton, D.  K. (2023). The blind-variation and selective-retention theory of creativity: The development and current status of BVSR. Creativity Research Journal. https://doi.org/10.108 0/10400419.2022.2059919 Simonton, D. K., & Song, A. V. (2009). Eminence, IQ, physical and mental health, and achievement domain: Cox’s 282 geniuses revisited. Psychological Science, 20, 429–434. Sorokin, P. A. (1937–1941). Social and cultural dynamics (Vols. 1–4). American Book. Sternberg, R. J. (1999). A propulsion model of types of creative contributions. Review of General Psychology, 3, 83–100. Sternberg, R. J. (2021). Transformational creativity: The link between creativity, wisdom, and the solution of global problems. Philosophies, 6, 75. Sternberg, R. J., & Karami, S. (2022). An 8P theoretical framework for understanding creativity and theories of creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 56, 55–78. Tsao, J. Y., Ting, C. L., & Johnson, C. M. (2019). Creative outcome as implausible utility. Review of General Psychology, 23, 279–292. Weisberg, R. W. (2014). Case studies of genius: Ordinary thinking, extraordinary outcomes. In D. K. Simonton (Ed.), The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of genius (pp. 139–165). Wiley-Blackwell. Weisberg, R.  W. (2015). On the usefulness of ‘value’ in the definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 27, 111–124.

Chapter 19

Reality Capture: Why We Need Transformational Creativity More than Ever Before Robert J. Sternberg

Some things in the world change; others don’t. One thing that has not changed is the need for transformational creativity—the production of ideas and innovations that are novel and useful and that have the potential to make a positive, meaningful, and enduring difference to the world (Sternberg, 2021). And yet, I will argue in this chapter, the need for transformational creativity is greater than it has been at any time in the human past. Of course, one always can say that things at a given time are more challenging than at past times. But there has been a change in the world in recent times that renders transformational creativity uniquely important in a way that might not have been as clear in the past. The change is in what I will call in this chapter capture of subjective reality, or just reality capture for short, with the understanding that the reality that is captured is subjective. Indeed, a case could be made that all reality we know is subjective (Kant, 1781/2008): We cannot know a thing in itself, according to Kant, only through our perception of it. For example, what we perceive as red is not actually red in itself. It is perceived as red. The idea of reality capture goes back at least to Plato, who in Book VII of The Republic introduces the allegory of the cave. The idea, now well known, is that we can imagine ourselves as residents of a cave who cannot get out and cannot know what is outside the cave. We can get glimmerings of what is outside, or what we believe might be outside, through the shadows that are cast, but that is all. According to Plato, the reality we experience is like the experience inside the cave—it is a faint shadow of reality, which is not in the concrete objects we perceive but rather in idealized forms. Essentially, according to Plato (n.d.), we live in an illusory world but never really know either that it is illusion or what the world of forms is like. A more modern version of Plato’s metaphor was introduced by science-fiction author Roger Zelazny (2010) in his Amber series. In this series, the one true world R. J. Sternberg (*) Department of Psychology, College of Human Ecology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2024 R. J. Sternberg, S. Karami (eds.), Transformational Creativity, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-51590-3_19

267

268

R. J. Sternberg

is Amber, and beyond that there are many alternative worlds that are shadows of Amber. The shadows vary in the degree to which they are like Amber. Only true residents of Amber can traverse the shadows to reach and leave Amber at will. But the shadow inhabitants think they live in a real world, much like Plato’s cave dwellers. What they believe is reality is actually shadows of reality. In the nineteenth century, the idea of reality capture was taken up by Abbott (1884) in his book Flatland. The book asks the reader to imagine life in a two-­ dimensional world where inhabitants cannot imagine life beyond the two dimensions in which they live. We all, of course, have the same problem. What can we imagine beyond the three dimensions of space and the one of time? The movie, The Matrix, raised a related question: How do we even know that we live in the real world rather than a virtual one invented by one or more others? Utopian and dystopian novels have long had their basis in reality capture. In Utopian societies, people adopt a set of principles for reality that differ, often considerably, from those of more mainstream societies. The beliefs seem to be based on wishes for how things could be rather than for how they are, as the famous Utopian societies, at least in the United States, including among others, the Hancock Shaker Village (founded in 1783), Brook Farm (started in 1841), the Oneida Community (started in 1848), and New Harmony (founded in 1814) (Nguyen, 2016). Plato’s The Republic, mentioned earlier, was perhaps among the first Western attempts to describe how society could come closer to an ideal. But novels also have been written describing Utopian societies. The novel that, arguably, started this tradition was Utopia, Sir Thomas More’s (1516/2020) attempt to describe a society based on reason and justice rather than customs, many of them maladaptive. More recently, B. F. Skinner (1976) described a Utopian community, Walden II, based on the principles of behavior analysis. More well-known to many readers are the dystopian novels—as well as the numerous real current dystopias around world—that make such a lasting impression on everyone. Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World (1932/2006) introduced the concept of a rigidly hierarchical state in which people are placed in a stratum of society—what today might be called a “caste”—and that stratum determines their life. More recently, Ray Bradbury (1953/2012) wrote Fahrenheit 451, a book in which ideas were suppressed in massive book-burnings, and Margaret Atwood’s (1985/1998) The Handmaid’s Tale is about a nightmare dystopia in which the rights of women are systematically suppressed. Probably the most well-known dystopia novel of all time is Orwell’s (1950) 1984, depicting a nightmare world in which a malign state seeks to control people’s thoughts and feelings as well as their behavior. Those people, like the characters Winston and Julia, who refuse to conform are subjected to mind-boggling and body-­ smashing torture that “re-educates” them. Modern-day China seems to have learned a lot from the book, or to have developed many of the same ideas independently (Hanson, 2020; Mosher, 2019; Reuters Staff, 2019; United Nations, 2022). Russia under Vladimir Putin seems to be rushing to catch up with China in terms of creating a dictatorial nightmarish dystopia (Berlin, 2022; “Explainer,” 2022). And then,

19  Reality Capture: Why We Need Transformational Creativity More than Ever Before

269

of course, there are North Korea, Nicaragua, and any number of other seriously failed states. The phenomenon of 1984-like states is scarcely new. Mao’s China, Stalin’s Russia, and East Germany before the fall of the Berlin Wall all would have been good candidates. All of these states were created through the use of what is sometimes called “negative” or “dark” creativity (Cropley et al., 2010; James et al., 1999; James & Taylor, 2010; Kapoor & Kaufman, 2022; Sternberg, 2010, 2021). Has anything changed in recent times? I argue that it has. What has changed is the greatly enhanced ability of malefactors to engage in reality capture—to control, virtually completely, their citizens’ views of reality. These malefactors have found novel and, to them, useful (creative) solutions to the age-old problem of how you convince people that the contrived world in which they are living is the real one.

What Are the Features of Reality Capture? The challenge of reality capture is that, if it is done effectively, one does not even know it has occurred. Autocrats, would-be autocrats,  social-media companies, or whoever attempts to capture the reality of individuals and nations do not advertise what they are doing. On the contrary, they seek to pretend that all is business as usual. Consider some of the features of reality capture. They are prototypical: Not all reality captures have the same features: 1. Communications. Communications in discord with the “reality” on offer are

(a) cut off (b) altered to conform to the desired reality (c) refuted as being absurd or as being deliberate falsehoods (d) used to reinforce the message that the sources are enemies (e) punished, where possible, with their originators shamed, arrested, exiled, or killed (as also can happen with the originators of external communications)

2. Rules regarding acceptable speech. The rules regarding what constitutes acceptable speech have fuzzy boundaries. For example, Russians must refer to the brutal invasion of Ukraine as a “special military operation” (Seddon & Reed, 2022) but it is not clear just how far one can go off-message before one is required to serve a long prison term. As in most other dictatorships, almost anything can potentially land one in serious trouble. Hence, one needs to be very careful with what one says to anyone, lest the force of the state be brought down upon one. 3. Self-censorship. People learn that a route to safety is through self-censorship. You do not have to agree with a real or potential autocrat and his or her (usually his) sycophants, but if you do not, you land in trouble. For example, few Republicans in Congress have crossed Donald Trump, and those that have preferred truth to lies, such as Liz Cheney, have ended up being censored and voted

270

R. J. Sternberg

out (Wise, 2022). Many of those in Russia who have crossed Vladimir Putin have ended up in prison or dead (Filipov, 2017; Talmazan, 2022). The purpose of the examples is to serve as a warning to others. The mind control is pervasive. For example, in China, as the official government explanation of the COVID-19 pandemic changed, so have the “scientific” findings of its researchers, with each wave of supposed scientific findings largely supporting the current but changing propaganda of the government. Those whose research did not support the government line risked their careers and more (Cohen, 2022). China is touted to be a “whole-process democracy,” superior to the democracy of the West (Loh, 2022), and departing from that propaganda line and calling it out as a dictatorship would be especially bad for one’s health and well-being. Research in democracies and quasi-democracies, such as the United States, can show similar features. If one has corporate sponsorship, and if one’s findings or words support the company’s product, one is showered with money; if one’s findings or words do not support the corporate products, one’s funding may be cut off quite rapidly (as has happened to the author of this article) (Piller & You, 2018). 4. “Truth” is an entirely flexible concept and departs from the Enlightenment view of truth as representing some objective reality as best it can be known. Kellyanne Conway, a former advisor to ex-U.S. President Donald Trump, captured the reality-capture view of truth particularly well. She appears to have coined the somewhat bizarre and even self-contradictory term, “alternative facts,” in a “Meet the Press” television interview on January 22, 2017. When there are “alternative facts,” so-called facts are no longer truly facts but rather assertions meant to capture the desired reality of those in power. Ultimately, as in 1984, one may find it plausible that “[w]ar is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength.” The claims become, over time, more and more ridiculous, so that it becomes easier for those in power to identify those who retain any integrity at all rather than succumbing to the propaganda of the government. In the United States, a political party has claimed that Donald Trump won the 2020 U.S. presidential election, that the United State has been taken over by a “deep state,” or that the FBI simply is out to “get” the former president, regardless of what he did (Harwood, 2022).  The increasing preposterousness of the claims helps to weed out those who are either are not True Believers or who are not willing to go along with increasingly audacious lies. 5. Creativity lacks integrity. Creative integrity refers to creativity based on truth (Sternberg & Lubart, 2022; Sternberg et al., 2022). The creativity is based on an account that corresponds, to the extent possible, to external reality and that is internally consistent. The definition of creativity provides no guarantee whatsoever that the creative idea of product is based on an accurate state of the world. For example, the propaganda in 1984 (Orwell, 1950) was very creative—it was novel and useful to the totalitarian government—but it made no sense and was based on lies about the world. In such states, internal inconsistency and lack of external correspondence to the world are viewed as benefits to the state, not as costs. If people are willing to believe anything the state tells them, no matter how

19  Reality Capture: Why We Need Transformational Creativity More than Ever Before

6.

7.

8.

9.

271

outrageous, then they will be obedient because they will have no critical-­thinking ability or desire to thwart the government’s purposes. Authorities make education serve their own political purposes. In a society characterized by reality capture, education is guided by the authorities to indoctrinate, not to educate. A “good citizen” is one who accepts the government line. In the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Russia quickly moved to “retrain” the teachers in captured areas to indoctrinate youngsters in the government’s web of lies, as happened during Stalinist times (Orru & Saidel, 2022). “Morality” is what the government says it is. One never knows when one is being surveilled. As in 1984 or in Xinjiang of the present (Human Rights Watch, 2019), surveillance is nearly ubiquitous, and one never know for sure that one is not being surveilled. A similar principle worked in East Germany, where anyone and everyone could be a spy for the government, including one’s own family and friends who were recruited by money, blackmail, or whatever means would serve the government’s purposes. In North Korea today, one is constantly under threat of surveillance (Amnesty International, 2018). Regrettably, countries where surveillance is not ubiquitous from the government may find surveillance, nevertheless, ubiquitous from websites and businesses that seek to track one’s movements online. Businesses are also tracking movements of employees, allegedly to ensure that they are truly working during working hours. Oddly, tracking employees may make them more likely to break rules (Thiel et al., 2022). Authorities send messages by making examples out of “transgressors.” Transgressors may be publicly criticized, hounded, jailed, poisoned, assassinated, or whatever. The authorities know that they cannot reach everyone who has transgressive thoughts. They rely on examples to show people what will happen if they are caught. The supreme leader remains in power over many years, or perhaps, for life. In reality-capture states, whether Russia, China, Nicaragua, Hungary, Vietnam, North Korea, Uganda, or wherever, the top leader stops changing. The political system is set up to perpetuate his leadership, no matter how bad it may be. People exist to serve the leader, as in the kingdoms of old, rather than vice versa. States on the verge, such as the United States under Donald Trump or Brazil under Jair Bolsonaro, sometimes have fought off those would-be dictators who undermine free elections and work to ensure their unending power. These leaders try to undermine faith in elections to make it appear that they and only they could have truly won electoral contests, regardless of the actual results. Some of these leaders go into their positions hoping to become forever leaders; others are corrupted by power. But people often are attracted to toxic leaders, who radiate their need for power and their self-confidence, leading people to make poor choices of leaders, all the way up to the top of the nation.

272

R. J. Sternberg

These characteristics pertained, of course, to states such as Nazi Germany, but they pertain to states inhabited by multiple billions of people today as well. Dictatorships are on the rise, not on the downfall (Albright, 2018).

How and Why Has Reality Capture Changed Reality capture has always been a problem but has become a worldwide problem today. Why?

Some people want to, in the words of Erich Fromm (1961), “escape from freedom.” Freedom causes them anxiety, a brooding sense of uncertainty, an existential angst. These people want order, certainty, predictability, a clear sense of where and how they belong. They may have what Sternberg (1997b; Sternberg et al., 2008) calls executive and conservative styles. They are afraid of change, unpredictability, and, most of all, the uncertainty that accompanies free will. They want to be told what to do and how to do it (executive style) and they want things to stay that way (conservative style). For them, freedom is not a source of relief; it is a threat. Democracy is under threat today (Albright, 2018; Applebaum, 2020; Levitsky & Ziblatt, 2018; Mounk, 2018) in part because cynical politicians are playing on people’s desire to believe in someone or something that will make them feel worthwhile and, in many cases, superior to others. They want the certainty of knowing that they matter and that they have been shortchanged and victimized too long. This is all standard pseudo-populist fare. Politicians pretend to care; people, desperate for attention, respect, and the feeling that they are understood, support the pseudo-populists. Thus, we get governments pretending to care, while the politicians enrich themselves and grab more and power, whether in Turkey, Hungary, Russia, China, or the United States, for that matter—really, wherever they can gain traction. What has changed, though, is the politicians’ ability to influence people’s beliefs through their almost complete capture of the people’s beliefs about reality. In Russia today, as in China and many other countries, ruthless autocrats have essentially taken control of virtually all the media, or at least the media that reach substantial numbers of people, and then used the media they control to create a false sense of reality (Lankina et  al., 2020). In the United States, Fox News and One America News Network, during the administration of Donald Trump, came close to being government mouthpieces, but were nevertheless independently owned (Bort, 2021; Illing, 2019). But having Rupert Murdoch as an owner, or any friend, business associate, or crony of an autocrat (Putin) or would-be autocrat (Trump), works even better than having a government-based operation, as it provides cover for the autocrat. The autocrat gives the preferred media preferred access (Grynbaum, 2018; Smith, 2019) and the media give the autocrat preferred coverage. In Russia, Turkey, Hungary, and other countries where government or government cronies control most or all of the media, and where uneducated, and even many educated people assume that what media say is more or less true, the media can exert enormous

19  Reality Capture: Why We Need Transformational Creativity More than Ever Before

273

amounts of control over people’s perceived realities. And countries can now cut off the Internet sources they do not like, and they do so, thus perpetuating fantasy names for malevolent projects such as Russia’s “special military operation” in Ukraine or China’s “re-education” camps in Xinjiang.

 ow Are People Especially Susceptible to Reality H Capture Today? In the twentieth century, IQs increased by 30 points (Flynn, 1987, 2012, 2016). But these IQ points seem to have helped little or not at all in preventing creativity from being used for malevolent purposes. Indeed, there is no reason they should have helped. There is nothing in the definition of creativity that implies that it will be used for positive purposes. It can be used equally for indifferent or negative purposes. Dr. Martin Luther King said, “We shall overcome because the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice” (King, 1968). But is that arc necessarily toward justice, or even positive? There are several factors that might lead one to conclude that the arc of history is indifferent. It can lead nowhere in particular, or in a negative direction. The context determines where it leads.

Inequality A first factor is that the economic systems of the world seem to be leading toward increasing disparity in wealth, across nations and across people within those nations (Piketty 2017, 2022). Of course, this recognition is not new: Karl Marx (1867/2011), never much appreciated by the mainstream in the Western world, had the same insight, and many Western scholars have affirmed that inequality remains a tremendous problem (Grusky & Hill, 2017). The problem with increasing inequality is that many of those on the lower end feel it and also feel victimized by it. In the United States, the number of workers who once might have had lifetime employment protected by a labor union has declined greatly (Rosenberg, 2020). Their feelings of injustice and of victimization may lead them to become a low-hanging fruit for pseudo-transformational leaders who are ready to take advantage of them in order to pursue their own ends (Bass, 1998; Bass et al., 1996; Bass & Riggio, 2006; Kellerman, 2004; Lipman-Blumen, 2006; Örtenblad, 2021). The result is that inequality sows the seeds of its own destruction, but also the destruction of many of those stuck in the inequitable system.

274

R. J. Sternberg

Ideological Rigidity IQ gains seem to have provided no protection against ideological rigidity. To a large extent, people use their general intelligence to think of ever more clever ways of supporting what they believe in the first place, which is usually what others have led them to believe (Sloman & Fernbach, 2018; Stanovich, 2021). They may become dogmatic not because they necessarily have to, but oddly, because they want to (Ambrose & Sternberg, 2012). Facts rarely change our minds (Kolbert, 2017). Ideological rigidity is more complex than it might seem. There are a number of reasons why someone might display ideological rigidity. All of these have actually arisen in the educational system, in general, and in the assessment system in the United States and other places, in particular (Sternberg, 1997a). Entrenchment People get used to thinking in a certain way. It becomes habitual and they do not want to give up the habit. Need to Belong People have a need to belong—to affiliate with others (Murray, 1938). If others have a certain ideology, belonging may require adopting the ideology. Social Pressure For those who do not quickly conform to group norms, there often is social pressure to bring them into conformity (Janis, 1972). Janis, in his analysis of groupthink, noticed that groups tend to have self-appointed “mindguards” who assure conformity to group norms. Those who violate the group norms are pressured to change their thinking and their behavior. In the extreme case, they end up like Socrates, drinking poison. One would like to think that such pressure is a matter of the past, but for the case of Alexei Navalny and other Russian dissidents who have been poisoned by the Russian government (Reevell, 2020). Usually, it does not take a poisoning for a malevolent government or group to get its way. Social pressure usually is enough.

19  Reality Capture: Why We Need Transformational Creativity More than Ever Before

275

Shame It is hard to change one’s views, often, without feeling some degree of shame. For example, imagine a professional who has treated clients or patients with a particular kind of medical or psychotherapeutic regime. The professional now changes to another method of treatment. Those who were treated before may believe that they were deceived into believing that the now-defunct treatment was right for them. Similarly, scholars often have trouble letting go of their scholarly views because they have published a great deal, and perhaps given talks, representing a particular point of view. If they change their mind, then it may appear to readers or listeners that everything the scholars did in the past is suspect. And then, how does one know that the scholar (or other professional) will not change their mind again and leave their new believers left with yesterday’s views or treatments?

Financial Costs Often, companies invest a great deal of money in their products and the marketing of those products. Leaving the products behind may leave them with an investment that has become worth little or nothing. For example, if production methods change, the machines that created the original products may become worthless.

Entrenched Beliefs About Reality Are Hard to Change We know how very difficult it is to “deprogram” those people who metaphorically have “drunk the Kool-Aid,” no matter how much people have been exploited (see, e.g., Berman, 2021). This expression refers originally to cult leader Jim Jones’ colony in Guyana, when it was about to be breeched by authorities (Guinn, 2018). Jones directed his followers to drink Kool-Aid flavored cyanide, and it appears that all of them either committed suicide or were murdered. But it is not just cult followers who believe nonsense and mindlessly obey authority figures. Stanley Milgram (2009) showed that even ordinary people in the United States of the mid-1960s would show obedience to authority figures in the absence of any good reason to do so. It is extremely difficult to change entrenched ideological or other beliefs (Svoboda, 2017). In the mid-twentieth century, Festinger et al. (1956/2009) studied what can  happen When Prophecy Fails. They studied a Doomsday Cult whose members sold their possessions and moved in together to live in a communal fashion. Their purpose was to await a spaceship that would land on Earth and then quickly fly them to the planet Clarion. They had good reason, they believed, to depart, because shortly after their departure, Earth and all its inhabitants would be destroyed.

276

R. J. Sternberg

Stunningly, at least to the potential colonists of Clarion, the ship did not arrive on schedule. So, the colonists then moved back the date of the ship’s expected arrival. But of course, the ship did not arrive on the second date either. To be exact, the ship never arrived. The question, of course, was why. And the reason became “obvious” upon reflection. God had decided to spare the world from utter destruction. Why? Because they, the potential colonists of Clarion, had been  true to Him! The cult members believed they had saved the planet from annihilation! The point, of course, is that once people truly want to believe something, it is exceedingly difficult for them to let go, as in the current case of those who believe that Donald Trump won the 2020 U.S. presidential election or that COVID-19 is a CIA plot, or whatever. As mentioned above, disconfirming evidence strengthens beliefs (Kolbert, 2017). The task of undoing reality capture is extremely challenging.

 he Role of Transformational Creativity in Preventing T and Combating Reality Capture What can be done about governments, corporations, political parties, or other entities in which power is concentrated that have as a goal the capture of people’s reality and the creation of a world of falsehood rather than of truth as best as we can know it? I believe that teaching for transformational creativity is, at the very least, a palliative for reality capture, and may be an antidote or at least a partially effective one. It does not involve  merely teaching knowledge or developing abilities. It involves teaching for certain attitudes toward life. The basic principles, I suggest, are these: • Creativity Is an Attitude Toward Life, not Merely an Ability. People sometimes believe that they do not “have it in them” to be creative because they lack creative ability. On the present view, creativity is not so much an ability as it is an attitude toward life—that one is willing to defy the crowd, oneself, and the societal Zeitgeist (Sternberg, 2018). This means that anyone has the power to defy reality capture, not just people with a certain IQ or personality structure. It is a decision that anyone can make. • Creativity Should Be Exercised with Integrity. Too much of creativity in current times is based on bald-faced lies repeated over and over again, because people tend more and more to believe what they keep hearing. Students need to learn to be creative based on truth rather than lies. If people hear enough that Donald Trump actually won the 2020 U.S. presidential election, the mere repetition and perhaps their desire to believe lead them to believe that it actually is true. • Creativity Should Be Exercised Positively. Much of creativity today is being used for ethically indifferent or even malign purposes. The result is social media that invades people’s privacy and addicts them to clicks, inventions that pollute and contribute to global climate change, addictive substances that keep people buying more of them even when they are harmful, increasingly innovative ways of killing innocent civilians in war zones, and on and on.

19  Reality Capture: Why We Need Transformational Creativity More than Ever Before

277

• Students Should Be Taught to Strive for Transformational Creativity. To be transformationally creative is simply to use one’s creativity to make the world, at some level, a better place. It could be a local level—or a global one. This means that one asks how one’s creative idea will make life better for others, not just for oneself, over the longer term as well as the short term. At the same time, it does not make life worse for some other individual or group. This kind of creativity is an attitude toward what one does, not an ability. • People Should Recognize that Transformational Creativity Is Inherently Risky. Almost without regard to the domain in which an idea is posed, there will be vested interest in favor of keeping things the way they are, without regard to their consequences. At least some of those with a vested interest likely will aggressively advocate for continuity and stability. They have built their life, their reputation, their resources, their self-esteem, or whatever, on the status quo. And they may be willing to go to great lengths to preserve their way of life. Thus, those who seek positive change are sometimes not only non-rewarded, but rather punished. Often, merely telling the truth is enough to get one into serious trouble, as happened to Colonel Alexander Vindman when he told the truth about Donald Trump’s phone call with the president of Ukraine, seeking dirt on Joe Biden (Stolberg, 2020). Vindman tried to make things better by being truthful; he lost his job. In the context of what happened, telling the truth was so novel and useful that it became a threat to a corrupt and morally vacuous administration. • People Always Should  Be Aware of Others Exerting Pseudo-­ transformational Creativity. No one claims to be creatively deceitful. Rather, pseudo-­transformationally creative people seek to be perceived as transformationally creative. Some are good at hiding their intentions, while others, not so good. For example, politicians often run for office on novel platforms that they claim will benefit the people they serve but that are really designed only to help themselves get into and stay in power. One therefore cannot assume that someone who appears to be transformationally creative is so. One needs to look below the surface. The value of transformational creativity is that it fits a need of the twenty-first century: As creativity more and more serves purposes that make people unknowing and sometimes unwilling cogs in greater and more complex engines of reality capture, the transformationally creative innovate new ways to combat this capture and to seek to know the world as it is and should be. Creativity in itself is inadequate to this purpose, as is intelligence. There are many people using their intelligence and creativity toward malign ends that lead to adverse capture of reality. Transformational creativity dedicated to a common good can lift us all out of this dystopian capture.

278

R. J. Sternberg

Conclusion Reality capture is a real and, in almost all respects, unfortunate phenomenon of contemporary life. It is not a new phenomenon. Religious leaders, many political leaders, and cult leaders have engaged in attempts at reality capture since ancient times. And because communications were limited, it was possible that people would learn little else beyond what leaders wanted the people to learn. During the medieval period, for example, the Catholic Church and successions of royal leaders captured the sacred and secular realities of citizens over a period of centuries. Today, the possibilities for reality capture are much more daunting than they ever have been before. Nations can control many or even all aspects of Internet communication, take over all or almost all the media (whether by the state, as in Russia, or by government shills, as in Hungary), and shape their citizens’ views of reality by inventing contrived histories (as Vladimir Putin has done). By encouraging self-­ exile or government-imposed exile, by imposing prison terms, or by assassinating opponents, citizens can learn that their option is to conform or risk dire consequences. These events are not ones that just apply to far-off places. During the administration of Donald Trump, appointees who were not in sync with Trump, and often who were not obsequious, were gone very quickly, even if they were among the most competent in the administration (Diehm et  al., 2019).  In current times, reality capture is everywhere. For the most part, we are left to our own device to combat it. Transformational creativity supplies a way of doing so.

References Abbott, E. A. (1884). Flatland: A romance of many dimensions. Seely. Albright, M. (2018). Fascism: A warning. Harper. Ambrose, D., & Sternberg, R. J. (Eds.). (2012). How dogmatic beliefs harm creativity and higher level thinking. Taylor & Francis. Amnesty International. (2018, January 12). North Korea, the surveillance state. Amnesty International. https://www.amnesty.org.uk/north-­korea-­surveillance-­state-­prison-campinternet-phone-­technology Applebaum, A. (2020). Twilight of democracy: The seductive lure of authoritarianism. Doubleday. Atwood, M. (1985/1998). The handmaid’s tale. Knopf-Doubleday. Bass, B.  M. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industrial, military, and educational impact. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Bass, B.  M., & Riggio, R.  E. (2006). Transformational leadership: A comprehensive review of theory and research (2nd ed.). Psychology Press. Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., & Atwater, L. (1996). The transformational and transactional leadership of men and women. International Review of Applied Psychology, 45, 5–34. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1464-­0597.1996.tb00847.x Berlin, S. (2022, March 7). Woman compares Russia to dystopian novel ‘1984’ in viral video. Newsweek. https://www.newsweek.com/woman-­compares-­russia-dystopian-novel1984-­viral-­video-­1685568 Berman, S. (2021). Don’t call it a cult: The shocking story of Keith Raniere and the women of NXIVM. Steerforth.

19  Reality Capture: Why We Need Transformational Creativity More than Ever Before

279

Bort, R. (2021, October 5). Fox News and OAN were deeper in the bag for Trump than anyone realized. Rolling Stone. https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-­news/ stephanie-­grisham-­fox-­news-­oan-­biased-­trump-­1237209/ Bradbury, R. (1953/2012). Fahrenheit 451. Simon & Schuster. Cohen, J. (2022, August 19). Anywhere but here. Science, 337(6608), 805–809. https://www.science.org/content/article/pandemic-­start-­anywhere-­but-­here-­argue-­papers-­chinese-­scientists-­ echoing-­party-­line Cropley, D. H., Cropley, A. J., Kaufman, J. C., & Runco, M. A. (Eds.). (2010). The dark side of creativity. Cambridge University Press. Diehm, J., Petulla, S., & Wolf, Z. B. (2019, October 21). Who has left Trump’s administration and orbit? CNN. https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2017/08/politics/trump-­admin-­departures-­trnd/ “Explainer” (2022, May 26). How Orwell’s 1984 looms large in wartime Russia. Moscow Times. https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2022/05/25/explainer-why-­orwells-­1984-looms-­largein-­putins-­russia-­a77780 Festinger, L., Riecken, H., & Schachter, S. (1956/2009). When prophecy fails: A social and psychological study of a modern group that predicted the destruction of the world. Martino Fine Books. Filipov, D. (2017, March 23). Here are 10 critics ofVladimir Putin who have died violently or in suspicious ways. Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/03/23/ here-­are-­ten-­critics-­of-­vladimir-­putin-­who-­died-­violently-­or-­in-­suspicious-­ways/ Flynn, J. R. (1987). Massive IQ gains in 14 nations. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 171–191. https:// doi.org/10.1037/0033-­2909.101.2.171 Flynn, J. R. (2012). Are we getting smarter? Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/ CBO9781139235679 Flynn, J. R. (2016). Does your family make you smarter? Nature, nurture, and human autonomy. Cambridge University Press. Fromm, E. (1961). Escape from freedom. Holt, Rinehart, & Winston. Grusky, D. B., & Hill, J. (Eds.). (2017). Inequality in the 21st century. Routledge. Grynbaum, M.  M. (2018, July 1). Fox News once gave Trump a perch. Now it’s his bullhorn. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/01/business/media/fox-­news-­trump-­bill-­ shine.html Guinn, J. (2018). The road to Jonestown: Jim Jones and peoples temple. Simon & Schuster. Hanson, V. D. (2020, February 20). China’s government is like something out of ‘1984.’ https:// www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/02/20/chinas_government_is_like_something_out_ of_1984_142444.htmlRealClearPolitics Harwood, J. (2022, May 1). Telling lies has become the norm for today’s Republicans. CNN. https:// www.cnn.com/2022/05/01/politics/republican-­party-­kevin-­mccarthy/index.html Human Rights Watch. (2019, May 2). How mass surveillance works in Xinjiang, China. https://www. hrw.org/video-­photos/interactive/2019/05/02/china-­how-­mass-­surveillance-­works-­xinjiang Huxley, A. (1932/2006). Brave new world. Harper Perennial. Illing, S. (2019, March 22). How Fox News evolved into a propaganda operation. Vox. https:// www.vox.com/2019/3/22/18275835/fox-­news-­trump-­propaganda-­tom-­rosenstiel James, K., & Taylor, A. (2010). Positive creativity and negative creativity (and unintended consequences). In D. H. Cropley, A. J. Cropley, J. C. Kaufman, & M. A. Runco (Eds.), The dark side of creativity (pp. 33–56). Cambridge University Press. James, K., Clark, K., & Cropanzano, R. (1999). Positive and negative creativity in groups, institutions, and organizations: A model and theoretical extension. Creativity Research Journal, 12, 211–226. Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of groupthink. Houghton-Mifflin. Kant, I. (1781/2008). Critique of pure reason. Penguin. Kapoor, H., & Kaufman, J. C. (2022). The evil within: The AMORAL model of dark creativity. Theory & Psychology, 32(3), 467–490. Kellerman, B. (2004). Bad leadership. Harvard Business Review Press.

280

R. J. Sternberg

King, M. L. (1968, March 31). Remaining awake through a great revolution. Speech presented at the National Cathedral, Washington, DC, USA. Kolbert, E. (2017, February 19). Why facts don’t change our minds. https://www.newyorker.com/ magazine/2017/02/27/why-­facts-­dont-­change-­our-­minds Lankina, T., Watanabe, K., & Netesova, Y. (2020). How Russian media control, media, and manipulate, and leverage public discontent: Framing protest in autocracies. In K. Koesel, V. Bunce, & J. Weiss (Eds.), Citizens and the state in authoritarian regimes: Comparing Russia and China (pp. 137–166). Oxford University Press. Levitsky, S., & Ziblatt, D. (2018). How democracies die. Crown. Lipman-Blumen, J. (2006). The allure of toxic leaders: Why we follow destructive bosses and corrupt politicians—And how we can survive them. Oxford University Press. Loh, M. (2022, June 28). Xi Jinping says China has consulted millions of citizens about its government as part of a ‘whole-process democracy’ that Beijing claims is better than the West’s. Insider. https://www.businessinsider.com/xi-­lauds-­chinaswhole-­process-­democracy-­before-­3rd-­term-­grab-­2022-­6 Marx, K. (1867/2011). Das Kapital. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. Milgram, S. (2009). Obedience to authority: An experimental view. Harper Perennial. More, T. (1516/2020). Utopia. Penguin. Mosher, S. W. (2019). China’s new ‘social credit system’ is a dystopian nightmare.NewYork Post. https:// nypost.com/2019/05/18/chinas-­new-­social-­credit-­system-­turns-­orwells-­1984-­into-­reality/ Mounk, Y. (2018). The people vs. democracy: Why our freedom is in danger and how we can save it. Harvard University Press. Murray, H. (1938). Explorations in personality. Oxford University Press. Nguyen, C. (2016, October 25). 6 attempts at Utopian settlements and where they are now. Insider. https://www.businessinsider.com/what-­happened-­to-­utopian-­settlements-­2016-­10 Orru, M., & Saidel, P. (2022, May 27). Russia plans to retrain 20,000 teachers in occupied areas of Southern Ukraine. Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/russia-­ukraine-­ latest-­news-­2022-­05-­27/card/russia-­plans-­to-­retrain-­20-­000-­teachers-­in-­occupied-­areas-­of-­ southern-­ukraine-­KMQk5Tp7vHPORIN9QVul Örtenblad, A. (Ed.). (2021). Debating bad leadership: Reasons and remedies. Palgrave Macmillan. Orwell, G. (1950). 1984. Signet. Piketty, T. (2017). Capital in the twenty-first century. Belknap. Piketty, T. (2022). A brief history of equality. Belknap. Piller, C., & You, J. (2018, July 5). Hidden conflicts? Pharma payments to FDA advisers after drug approvals speak ethical concerns. Science. https://www.science.org/content/article/ hidden-­conflicts-­pharma-­payments-­fda-­advisers-­after-­drug-­approvals-­spark-­ethical Plato, W. H. D. Rouse (Ed.). (n.d.). The Republic Book VII (pp. 365–401). Penguin Group Inc. Reevell, P. (2020, August 26). Before Navalny, a long history of Russian poisonings. ABC News. https://abcnews.go.com/International/navalny-­long-­history-­russian-­poisonings/ story?id=72579648 Reuters Staff (2019, October 11). Pompeo says ‘1984’ coming to life in China’s Xinjiang region. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-­usa-­china-­muslims-­pompeo/pompeosays-­orwells-­1984-­coming-­to-­life-­in-­chinas-­xinjiang-­region-­idUSKBN1WQ27U Rosenberg, E. (2020, January 23). Workers are fired up. But union participation is still on the decline, new statistics show. Washington Post. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRH4-­aGWWXo Seddon, M., & Reed, J. (2022, February 27). Kremlin propaganda machine struggles to conceal Putin’s Ukraine war. Financial Times. https://www.ft.com/ content/73f87533-­749a-­4539-­aeae-­89ce0a9265bd Skinner, B. F. (1976). Walden two. Macmillan. Sloman, S., & Fernbach, P. (2018). The knowledge illusion: Why we never think alone. Riverhead. Smith, D. (2019, June 15). Trump has a favourite news network—And it’s more rightwing than Fox. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/tv-­and-­radio/2019/jun/15/ oan-­oann-­fox-­news-­donald-­trump

19  Reality Capture: Why We Need Transformational Creativity More than Ever Before

281

Stanovich, K.  E. (2021). The bias that divides us: The science and politics of myside thinking. M.I.T. Press. Sternberg, R. J. (1997a). Successful intelligence. Plume. Sternberg, R. J. (1997b). Thinking styles. Cambridge University Press. Sternberg, R.  J. (2010). The dark side of creativity and how to combat it. In D.  H. Cropley, A. J. Cropley, J. C. Kaufman, & M. A. Runco (Eds.), The dark side of creativity (pp. 316–328). Cambridge University Press. Sternberg, R. J. (2018). A triangular theory of creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 12, 50–67. Sternberg, R. J. (2021). Transformational creativity: The link between creativity, wisdom, and the solution of global problems. Philosophies, 6, 75. https://doi.org/10.3390/philosophies6030075 Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. (2022). Beyond defiance: An augmented investment perspective on creativity. Manuscript submitted for publication. Sternberg, R. J., Grigorenko, E. L., & Zhang, L.-F. (2008). Styles of learning and thinking matter in instruction and assessment. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(6), 486–506. Sternberg, R. J., Glaveanu, V., & Kaufman, J. C. (2022). In quest of creativity three paths toward an elusive grail. Creativity Research Journal. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2022.2107299 Stolberg, S.  G. (2020, February 7). Meet Alexander Vindman, the colonel who testified on Trump’s phone call. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/29/us/politics/who-­ is-­alexander-­vindman.html Svoboda, E. (2017, June 27). Why is it so hard to change people’s minds? Greater Good Science Center. https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/ why_is_it_so_hard_to_change_peoples_minds Talmazan, Y. (2022, September 2). Death of Russian oil exec highlights suspicious ends met by those who crossed the Kremlin. NBC News. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/ russia-­vladimir-­putin-­kremlin-­lukoil-­maganov-­death-­navalny-­skripal-­rcna46030 Thiel, C., Bonner, J. M., Bush, J., Welsh, D., & Garud, N. (2022, June 27). Monitoring employees makes them more likely to break rules. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2022/06/ monitoring-­employees-­makes-­them-­more-­likely-­to-­break-­rules United Nations. (2022, August 31). China responsible for ‘serious human rights violations’ in Xinjiang province: UN human rights report. United Nations. https://news.un.org/en/ story/2022/08/1125932 Wise, A. (2022, February 4). RNC votes to censure reps. Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger over work with Jan. 6 panel. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2022/02/04/1078316505/ rnc-­censure-­liz-­cheney-­adam-­kinzinger-­jan-­6-­committee-­capitol Zelazny, R. (2010). The great book of Amber: The complete Amber chronicles (pp. 1–10). Harper Voyager.

Chapter 20

99 Shades of Gray: A Newish Look at Light, Dark, and Other Value Judgments of Creativity Robert J. Sternberg

When I started my career, creativity was viewed primarily as a good thing. Authors wrote, and still write, books and articles, and gave talks on developing creativity, especially in the classroom, with the goal of helping everyone to achieve something good for themselves and perhaps for the world (e.g., Beghetto et al., 2015; Beghetto & Kaufman, 2016; Craft et  al., 2001; De Bono, 1999, 2015; Guilford, 1964; Gutworth et al., 2016; Kettler et al., 2018; Sternberg & Williams, 1996). Creative problem solving was to be the wave of the future (Duncker, 1945; Guilford, 1950). Publications have appeared throughout the years on both the potential advantages (e.g., Kaufman, 2023) and disadvantages (e.g., Kapoor & Kaufman, 2022a, 2022b) of creativity, sometimes by the same authors. But in the early years of creativity research in psychology, the strong emphasis was on the positive consequences of thinking creatively. In recent years, a growing literature has appeared on positive creativity—creativity that has beneficial effects—and especially on negative creativity, or dark creativity—creativity that has detrimental effects (e.g., Cropley & Cropley, 2019; Cropley et al., 2008, 2010; Harris et al., 2013; Harris & Reiter-Palmon, 2015; James et al., 1999; James & Taylor, 2010; Kapoor & Kaufman, 2022a, 2022b, 2022c; Sternberg, 2010). A scale has been proposed to measure malevolent creativity (Hao et  al., 2016), which is creativity that is intentionally malicious. Dark creativity is similar to, but broader than malevolent creativity, as creativity can have dark consequences even when it was not originally conceived in a malevolent way. In part to set the field on what I hoped would be a better path, I introduced the concept of transformational creativity (Sternberg, 2021), which is creativity intended, at some level, to make the world a better place. I contrasted this kind of creativity with transactional creativity, which is creativity that is tit-for-tat: One is creative in exchange for some kind of reward; and with pseudo-transformational R. J. Sternberg (*) Department of Psychology, College of Human Ecology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2024 R. J. Sternberg, S. Karami (eds.), Transformational Creativity, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-51590-3_20

283

284

R. J. Sternberg

creativity, which is creativity that is intended to appear to be transformational but that is in fact intended to advance one’s own or one’s own group’s ends. Many autocratic leaders are pseudo-transformational in their creativity, promising a new and better future to benefit everyone, when in fact they are only interested in benefiting themselves and their allies. In another chapter in this book on “Varieties of Transformational Creativity” (Sternberg, this volume), I suggest that there is an additional kind of creativity, in particular, para-transformational creativity, which is creativity that is transformational but whose ultimate outcome is uncertain, unclear, or mixed. The creativity may end up being transformational, pseudo-transformational, some combination of these, or something else altogether. Much of creativity that society once viewed as transformational later comes to be viewed, in retrospect, as para-transformational. For example, internal-combustion engines once appeared to be transformational for the world, enabling people to travel easily, conveniently, and relatively quickly to places they might otherwise not be able to reach. Today, in a world where temperatures are steadily rising and reaching unprecedented levels, and in which severe weather events and wildfires are reaching levels never seen before, one would have to wonder whether the internal-combustion engines were transformational after all. They were not pseudo-transformational, in that the inventors presumably thought they were doing a good thing. They proved to be para-transformational. In the short run, they looked transformational; in the long run, they looked much darker in terms of their creative contribution. The claim of this article is that categories such as benevolent creativity and malevolent creativity, light creativity and dark creativity, positive creativity and negative creativity, and even transformational creativity, are rather less definitive than they might appear to be, and sometimes even can be misleading. The reason is that almost all creativity exists in perhaps “99 shades of gray,” an expression gleaned from a website, Colors Explained (n.d.), that actually does name 99 shades of gray. By creating categories for kinds of creativity that exist on continua, and moreover, on several continua, the field risks oversimplifying a highly complex phenomenon. It often is not clear, in the short run, in what category a creative contribution belongs.

The Problem When psychologists started studying dark or negative creativity (e.g., James et al., 1999; Cropley et al., 2010), it quickly became clear that many, if not most investigators had been too optimistic about creativity, although some investigators remain more optimistic (e.g., Kaufman, 2023) than others (Sternberg & Lubart, 2022). Creativity could be used to paint master works of art such as the Mona Lisa (da Vinci) or Les Demoiselles d’Avignon (Picasso), but as was recognized early on, it also could be used to convince people to believe things that were not true (Packard, 1960), such as the health value of smoking (Sample, 2003). At some level, the work on dark creativity has confirmed what society already has known, but the hope was

20  99 Shades of Gray: A Newish Look at Light, Dark, and Other Value Judgments…

285

that, at least for the most part, creativity would be used for positive rather than negative purposes. That was before social media, and the disproportionate rewarding on social media of negative creative contributions over positive ones (Whatman, 2022). People share more negative posts and react to them more strongly. But then, exactly what does it mean for a post to be “negative,” or “positive” for that matter, or “neutral”? With some posts, the answer may be clear. For example, a social media post that encourages people to hurt, maim, or kill each other could, for most people, be classified as negative without a great deal of soul-searching. But how about a comment, even a factual one, on a candidate for political whom one believes is evil and perhaps dangerous? I have been forced to remove commentaries on political candidates, even factual ones, because judgments of the acts of the candidate have been viewed by editors or reviewers to be protected speech. But where does “protected speech” end? Should Adolf Hitler’s speech have been protected against criticism when he was a political candidate? Suppose, as was not a particularly improbable scenario, that Adolf Hitler and the Nazis defeated the Allies during World War II. In some fictional narratives, it was imagined that Hitler had won (e.g., Dick, 1962). Suppose that political descendants of that regime ruled all countries of the world. If judgments were to be made about what constitutes “light” and “dark” creativity, whose judgments would predominate? Who would constitute the moral authority for deciding what is light and what is dark creativity? Suppose a current repressive dictator takes over massive parts of the world—Jinping Xi or Vladimir Putin—and judgments need to be made about the creativity of their genocidal campaigns, whether against the Uighurs or the Ukrainians, respectively. Who would make them, especially if making a judgment contrary to that of the regime resulted in imprisonment or death by poisoning or falling from a high window? The problem is that, because we are always part of some sociocultural group at a given time in a given place, we make judgments based on some set of socioculturally derived moral reference points. Today, individuals who once were admired and still are admired by many are being called to task because they own slaves, had prejudices or biases, or otherwise behaved in ways that were viewed as acceptable at the time but today would be viewed as unacceptable and perhaps as abhorrent (Brockell, 2019). But in a century or two centuries from now, how many of our own thoughts and behaviors will be viewed as unacceptable or abhorrent? Even ideas that at one time seemed like positive exemplars of creativity today are viewed differently. Gasoline-powered automobiles seemed like a good idea at one time, until, today, they do not seem like such a great idea. The Electoral College seemed like a good idea until the United States kept electing presidents by a minority vote and is likely to do so again. A strategy of a political party can now be to receive a minority vote, but one that will win the vote in the Electoral College. Political parties have seemed like a good idea until some of them turned into cults. No one can perfectly or even close to perfectly predict how creative ideas will work out in the long run. Ideas that once seemed well-meaning can work out

286

R. J. Sternberg

poorly—it once seemed like a good idea for elite universities to be all-male, until it didn’t—and ideas that are ill-meaning can turn out well: The author, trained as a cognitive psychologist, was once told by a colleague, as a creative insult, that his having done work in social psychology disqualified him from being a cognitive psychologist. After first bemoaning his fate, he realized that the remark had freed him from perceiving his career in a narrow and self-limiting way.

The Problem At some level, we all believe we can distinguish light from dark, positive from negative, and other kinds of creativity from one another. But in viewing history over the entire panorama of time and space, it often is hard to say with certainty, or even near-certainty, what is what (cf. Glaveanu et al., 2019). The problem is that there are so many shades of gray, metaphorically, at least 99 of them! What appears to be light at one point may appear to be dark at another. When I was a child, there were countless TV Westerns—they were shown every afternoon on some TV stations—showing the supposedly “good-guy” White cowboys beating back the American Indian supposedly “bad-guy” warriors. I cannot remember, in my early childhood in the 1950s, anyone in my environment questioning their right to take the American Indians’ land away from them. The presentation was entirely one-sided and prejudiced against Native Americans. We learned in American History classes, in multiple school grades, about the doctrine of Manifest Destiny (Heidler & Heidler, 2023). This idea was introduced by John Louis O’Sullivan, an editor, to justify the annexation by the United States of what would become the State of Texas and also the Oregon territory, which today encompasses not only the State of Oregon, but also the States of Idaho, Washington, and western parts of the States of Montana and Wyoming. Although Manifest Destiny was debated in what we read in the 1950s and 1960s, the debate, in my textbooks, at least, was in pragmatic rather than moral terms: Was it the most practical thing to annex these territories as it was done? The problem, then, is that judgments regarding what is light or dark, or simply good or bad, depend very much on the time and place that they are made. Some substances in the environment, introduced as good, may not be so good after all. As I write, there has been a dramatic increase in cancer diagnoses among younger adults under 50 (Brigham and Women’s Hospital Communications, 2022). Rates of autism have skyrocketed (Bendix, 2023). Rates of other diagnoses, such as of ADHD (attention-deficit-hyperactivity disorder), also have increased dramatically (Abdelnour et al., 2022). Perhaps we are experiencing better diagnosis or even over-­ diagnosis, but those of us who teach and have observed startling, often overwhelming increases in the proportions of our students with learning- or attentional-disability diagnosis, have to deal with the consequences. Is it food additives, fast food, too much sugar, too much of something else? We have been through the truly bad consequences of pesticides that seemed like a blessing and then proved to be a curse

20  99 Shades of Gray: A Newish Look at Light, Dark, and Other Value Judgments…

287

(Carson, 2022). What seems like light creative ideas to make the world better can turn out to be dark in ways the creators, and perhaps anyone else, did not predict. Some creative ideas, when they are introduced, seem to transcend spatial and temporal limitations. But perhaps this is what those ancients thought among the Aztecs, Incas, and other peoples who sacrificed children to appease their gods. Perhaps that is what the Crusaders thought in their holy wars against the supposed infidels. Perhaps that is what some Nazis and Nazi sympathizers thought in their genocide against Jews and other groups. And even in late 2023, no doubt there are some Russians who believe in the absolute justness of their genocide against Ukraine. The proposal of this essay is that, despite our human tendency to wish to classify creativity into white and black, light and dark, or even transformational and pseudo-­ transformational, history reveals that creativity comes in 99 or more shades of gray, with the shading changing over time and place. We need to judge: We have to reward those who act well in terms of sociocultural expectations and punish those who act badly. But we need to realize that today’s metaphorical pat on the head may be tomorrow’s metaphorical spanking, and that the same behavior that is viewed as positive in one place-- creatively making music, for example--may be viewed as an abomination in another place with different religious or cultural views. When acts of creativity are judged, they need to be judged in context and the judges need to recognize that they are part of the context. Table  20.1 shows the questions we need to ask when we make judgments of creative acts in terms of any categorization, light vs. dark, transformational vs. non-transformational, benevolent or malevolent, or whatever. The two major questions we need to address are for whom a judgment is being made, and by whom it is being made. The answers to these two questions will determine, in part, what judgment is made. For example, the pesticides or food additives Table 20.1  Factors Affecting Judgments of Kinds of Creativity For … Who benefits from, and who is harmed by, a creative act? What? What constitutes a beneficial or a harmful creative act toward a particular agent? Where? Where is a particular creative act considered beneficial or harmful to a particular agent? When? When—during what time period—is a particular creative act considered beneficial or harmful to a particular agent? Why? Why is a creative act considered to be harmful or beneficial to a particular agent—according to what criteria? How? How is a particular creative act or harmful to a particular agent? Who?

By Who judges whether a creative act is beneficial or harmful, and in what degree? Who decides what creative acts are beneficial and what ones are harmful? Who decides, for a given place where a creative act is judged, whether it is beneficial or harmful? Who decides, for a given time period when a creative act is judged, whether it is beneficial or harmful? Why is the particular individual or group deciding as they are whether the results of a creative act are beneficial or harmful? How is the creative act judged as to whether it is beneficial or harmful?

288

R. J. Sternberg

viewed as transformational in the past or present might be judged differently in the future. Even today, many genetically altered foods that are viewed as useful in the United States are banned in Europe (Rabin, 2018). What is viewed as light creative by regulators in the U.S. is viewed as dark creative by food regulators in much of Europe. So, who is doing the judging, what are they judging, where are they doing the judging, when they are doing the judging, and how are they judging, all matter. Consider again the question of internal-combustion engines in moving vehicles. What kind of creativity are they? For the general population, when I grew up in the 1950s as a little kid in New Jersey, they were a Godsend. How else could we get around past my suburb of Newark, NJ, Maplewood? There was no other viable option, for example, to go to the beaches in southern New Jersey, or to get to the train that would take us to New  York City. Almost everyone loved cars! But not everyone loved them, even in the 1950s. The Amish and members of some other religious groups eschewed them. Some people found their pollution extremely unpleasant, not even realizing yet the damage that the lead in gasoline was doing to the development of young children. By 2023, government officials are trying to encourage people to switch to electric cars, which themselves have their own problems. Many people look at gas-guzzlers with disdain. And some areas ban cars or have variable tolls that increase when there are a lot of cars around. Technological innovations are more likely than some other kinds of innovations to arouse mixed feelings, especially over the long term. Even air conditioners, which seem like such a blessing when it is stiflingly hot, are energy guzzlers that can contribute to global climate change. At one time, freon gas was used to aid in refrigeration, until it was discovered to be hazardous—another innovation that was not quite what it was cracked up to be. Transformationally creative literary work would seem to be more benign than transformationally creative technology, but at the same time, there are large teams of poorly informed but, they believe, well-meaning parental and cynical political groups seeking to ban books—right now, generally in so-called red (conservative) states of the United States. The attempts to ban books include those of major prize-winning authors. In the United States, in a period of just one year from July 2021 to June 2022, PEN America (Friedman & Johnson, 2022) found 2532 cases of individual books being banned. This banning affected a total of 1648 unique book titles, many by award-­ winning authors (https://libguides.com.edu/c.php?g=649165&p=9253060). These books were by 1261 different authors. Although the large majority were in so-called red states, some were in so-called purple (mixed-ideology) states, such as Pennsylvania and Michigan. And they occurred in many different parts of the US. Books that, at one time, were seen as having the potential to transform students’ thinking were thus declared unacceptable for children’s consumption. One can write these attempts off as the products of reactionary ideology or ignorance, but who gets to decide? How do we know for sure what is light, and what is dark creativity? What if, as in the movie Idiocrasy, the ignorant and the foolish take over every place? Some countries have already become 1984-like in their ideological repression and suppression of ideas—in Russia, for example, with a score from Freedom

20  99 Shades of Gray: A Newish Look at Light, Dark, and Other Value Judgments…

289

House of 16 out of 100, it does not take much in terms of what might seems like creative political speech to end up in prison or worse (Freedom House, 2023). China, with a score of 9, does even worse. And sadly, there are 13 countries below China, bottoming out with South Sudan and Syria. In contrast, Finland is at the top, with a score of 100 out of 100. Given that global freedom has declined for 17 years in a row, according to Freedom House, future prospects may be even worse for suppression of creative thought or redefinition of what is “light” and what is “dark” creativity. The question of who gets to judge what is “positively creative” comes out in a very different way in a repressive autocracy from in a supposedly free country, but how does one know who should judge? If the world goes increasingly autocratic, will a new generation grow up with very different ideas about what is “transformationally” or even “positively” creative?

Is There an Absolute Standard? Is there some absolute standard for positive and negative creativity that transcends sociocultural or historical perspectives—that is outside a set of essentially arbitrary standards that one group or another decides to impose at a given time in a given place? There may be well be: The problem is how we, as humans, possibly could know what it is. Those groups that have been the most confident in the God-given or other correctness of their judgments tend to be the most extreme and also, in a way, the most frightening. As we see in perma-conflicts, such as in the Middle East, many participants tend to become frozen by their own certainty in the correctness of their views. That said, there does seem to be a test that can be applied to creativity, but it is not one that can be administered for newly creative ideas. It is the test of time and place. There are some creative works that just endure, even in the sciences, where very few ideas stand the test of time. For example, Newton’s ideas have had a tremendously positive effect on the development of physics and engineering, even if they were more limited than they appeared to be at first. Sigmund Freud may have been wrong in some or most of his ideas, but, according to Google Scholar, his work has been cited over 670,000 times, with an h index (number of times, h, a publication is cited h times), of 290. Sometimes, the heuristic value of ideas is in showing not only what is right about them, but also what is wrong. Some works seem to be immortal over time and place. The best work of Ludwig von Beethoven, such as the Ninth Symphony, or the Water Lilies paintings of Claude Monet, or Faust by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, or freshly baked whole-grain bread, for that matter, are not likely suddenly to be found to be less than transformationally creative, in that they have enriched the lives of countless people over long stretches of time. There are many creative works that seem to transcend any particular set of sociocultural norms—they are just great by any reasonable standard. In terms of the categories in Table 20.1, there certainly might be some societies or elements of societies

290

R. J. Sternberg

that do not view these works as creative, but the works will outlast those societies. When those societies have had their rise and fall, the works will live on—indeed, have lived on. The small-minded, busy-body book banners will come and go—the great works they ban, or at least the best of them, will live on as great works of literature.

Conclusion What is positively or negatively creative, or transformationally creative or just ordinarily creative, is typically judged in the sociocultural prism as described by Glaveanu et  al. (2019). But creativity is not wholly relative. Regimes, such as Russia’s current one, that are dictatorial and repressive and that do violence to human rights, no matter how darkly creatively, in the long run will be remembered for what they are—as darkly and malignantly creative, to the extent that they are creative at all in creating novel means of committing genocide. It is possible to transcend sociocultural classifications of creativity, but only over long periods of time and over wide expanses of space. The greatest transformationally creative works, usually representing so-called Big-C creative ideas (Kaufman & Beghetto, 2009) will be transformational, in centuries to come as now, even if it is for the change they wrought in the past. Going beyond sociocultural boundaries is important, not just for the Big-C creative acts, but for the dark creative acts. Dark creators need to realize that, in the future, as in the past, dark creative acts whose motives or outcomes are hidden will be outed. If you want to know if you have acted in a transformationally creative, or darkly creative, or any other kind of creative way, you may have to judge from your place in heaven, hell, or wherever you end up, metaphorically or not, after you pass away. Be sure to look!

References Abdelnour, E., Jansen, M. O., & Gold, J. A. (2022, September–October). ADHD diagnostic trends: Increased recognition or overdiagnosis? Missouri Medicine, 119(5), 467–473. https://www. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9616454/ Beghetto, R. A., & Kaufman, J. C. (Eds.). (2016). Nurturing creativity in the classroom (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. Beghetto, R. A., Kaufman, J. C., & Baer, J. (2015). Teaching for creativity in the common Core classroom. Teachers College Press. Bendix, A. (2023, January 26). Autism rates have tripled. Is it now more common or are we just better at diagnosis? NBC News. https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-­news/ autism-­rates-­rising-­more-­prevalent-­versus-­more-­screening-­rcna67408 Brigham and Women’s Hospital Communications. (2022, September 8). Dramatic rise in cancer in people under 50. The Harvard Gazette. https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2022/09/ researchers-­report-­dramatic-­rise-­in-­early-­onset-­cancers/

20  99 Shades of Gray: A Newish Look at Light, Dark, and Other Value Judgments…

291

Brockell, G. (2019, August 25). George Washington owned slaves and ordered Indians killed. Will a mural of that history be hidden? Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/ history/2019/08/25/george-­washington-­owned-­slaves-­ordered-­indians-­killed-­will-­mural-­ that-­history-­be-­hidden/ Carson, R. (2022). Silent Spring. Mariner Books Classics: Anniversary Edition. Colors Explained. (n.d.). https://www.colorsexplained.com/shades-­of-­gray-­color-­names/ Craft, A., Jeffrey, B., & Leibling, M. (Eds.). (2001). Creativity in education. Continuum. Cropley, D.  H., & Cropley, A.  J. (2019). Malevolent creativity: Past, present and future. In J.  C. Kaufman & R.  J. Sternberg (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp.  677–690). Cambridge University Press. Cropley, D. H., Cropley, A. J., Kaufman, J. C., & Runco, M. A. (Eds.). (2010). The dark side of creativity. Cambridge University Press. Cropley, D. H., Kaufman, J. C., & Cropley, A. J. (2008). Malevolent creativity: A functional model of creativity in terrorism and crime. Creativity Research Journal, 20(2), 105–115. De Bono, E. (2015). Lateral thinking: Creativity step by step (reissue ed.). Harper Colophone. De Bono, R. (1999). Six thinking hats. Back Bay Books. Dick, P. K. (1962). The main in the high castle. Putnam. Duncker, K. (1945). On problem-solving (L. S. Lees, Trans.). Psychological Monographs, 58(5), i–113. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093599 Freedom House. (2023). Freedom in the World 2023: Russia. https://freedomhouse.org/country/ russia/freedom-­world/2023 Friedman, J., & Johnson, N.  F. (2022, September 19). Banned in the USA: The growing movement to censor books in schools. https://pen.org/report/ banned-­usa-­growing-­movement-­to-­censor-­books-­in-­schools/ Glaveanu, V. P., Hanchett Hanson, M., Baer, J., Barbot, B., Clapp, E., Corazza, G., Hennessey, B., Karwowski, M., Kaufman, J., Lebuda, I., Lubart, T., Montuori, A., Ness, I., Plucker, J., Reiter-Palmon, R., Sierra, Z., Simonton, D. K., Neves-Pereira, M., & Sternberg, R. J. (2019). Advancing creativity theory and research: A sociocultural manifesto. Journal of Creative Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.395 Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5(9), 444–454. https://doi.org/10.1037/ h0063487 Guilford, J. P. (1964, June 23). Models for creative problem solving. Alex Osborn Creative Studies Collection. Archives & Special Collections Department, E. H. Butler Library, SUNY Buffalo State. https://digitalcommons.buffalostate.edu/cs-­speakers/15 Gutworth, M.  B., Cushenbery, L., & Hunter, S.  T. (2016). Creativity for deliberate harm: Malevolent creativity and social information processing theory. Journal of Creative Behavior, 52(4), 305–322. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.155 Hao, N., Tang, M., Yang, J., Wang, Q., & Runco, M. A. (2016). A new tool to measure malevolent creativity: The malevolent creativity behavior scale. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 682. https:// doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00682 Harris, D. J., & Reiter-Palmon, R. (2015). Fast and furious: The influence of implicit aggression, premeditation, and provoking situations on malevolent creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 9(1), 54–64. Harris, D. J., Reiter-Palmon, R., & Kaufman, J. C. (2013). The effect of emotional intelligence and task type on malevolent creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 7, 237–244. Heidler, D. S., & Heidler, J. T. (2023). Manifest destiny. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www. britannica.com/event/Manifest-­Destiny James, K., Clark, K., & Cropanzano, R. (1999). Positive and negative creativity in groups, institutions, and organizations: A model and theoretical extension. Creativity Research Journal, 12, 211–226.

292

R. J. Sternberg

James, K., & Taylor, A. (2010). Positive creativity and negative creativity (and unintended consequences). In D. H. Cropley, A. J. Cropley, J. C. Kaufman, & M. A. Runco (Eds.), The dark side of creativity (pp. 33–56). Cambridge University Press. Kapoor, H., & Kaufman, J. C. (Eds.). (2022a). Creativity and morality. Academic Press. Kapoor, H., & Kaufman, J. C. (2022b). Creativity, morality, and the AMORAL model. In H. Kapoor & J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), Creativity and morality (pp. 5–12). Academic Press. Kapoor, H., & Kaufman, J. C. (2022c). The evil within: The AMORAL model of dark creativity. Theory & Psychology, 32(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/09593543221074 Kaufman, J. C. (2023). The creativity advantage. Cambridge University Press. Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Beyond big and little: The four-c model of creativity. Review of General Psychology, 13, 1–13. Kettler, T., Lamb, K. N., & Mullet, D. R. (2018). Developing creativity in the classroom. Routledge. Packard, V. (1960). The hidden persuaders. Penguin. Rabin, R. C. (2018, December 28). What foods are banned in Europe but not banned in the U.S.? New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/28/well/eat/food-­additives-­banned-­ europe-­united-­states.html Sample, I. (2003, August 7). Smoking is good for you. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian. com/lifeandstyle/2003/aug/07/shopping.health Sternberg, R.  J. (2010). The dark side of creativity and how to combat it. In D.  H. Cropley, A. J. Cropley, J. C. Kaufman, & M. A. Runco (Eds.), The dark side of creativity (pp. 316–328). Cambridge University Press. Sternberg, R. J. (2021). Transformational creativity: The link between creativity, wisdom, and the solution of global problems. Philosophies, 6, 75. https://doi.org/10.3390/philosophies6030075 Sternberg, R.  J. (this volume). Varieties of transformational creativity. In R.  J. Sternberg & S. Karami (Eds.), Transformational creativity: How creativity can serve humanity in a world of unpredicted and unpredictable challenges. Palgrave Macmillan. Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. (2022). Beyond defiance: An augmented investment perspective on creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.567 Sternberg, R. J., & Williams, W. M. (1996). How to develop student creativity. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Whatman, P. (2022, December 30). Analysis of 11 billion mentions: Social media is more negative than ever. Mention.com. https://mention.com/en/blog/social-­media-­mentions-­analysis/

Index

A Adult development, 43, 46, 50, 53, 177 Assumptions, 107, 114, 121–131, 136, 137, 140, 162, 170, 192, 224, 256

211–227, 231–243, 245, 255, 267–278, 283–290 Creativity enhancement, 240 Creativity misconceptions, 89, 136, 137, 142–144, 241 Critical thinking, viii, 6, 20, 83, 105, 107, 109, 111, 112, 116, 121, 123–131, 218, 271

B Behavioral science, 183–193, 245 C Capture of subjective reality, 267 Common good, viii, 8, 23, 43–51, 53, 62, 65, 70, 104, 108–110, 113, 116, 141, 149, 154, 172, 185, 186, 189, 191–193, 202, 205, 211, 237, 245–248, 251, 252, 260–265, 277 Compassion, 49, 79–80, 83, 103, 105, 109–112, 115, 142, 177, 206 Competence, 33, 75–78, 83, 84, 114, 233–235, 237 Concern for others, 49, 75–80, 83, 84, 142 Concerned creativity, 73–84 Creative genius, 136, 255–265 Creative thinking, 1, 9, 61, 70, 77, 79, 98, 103, 105, 109, 121, 123, 125–130, 140, 143, 144, 151–153, 158–159, 163, 174, 199, 200, 204, 206, 212, 221, 246, 251 Creative thinking process, 82, 84, 159, 202 Creativity, vii–viii, 1–10, 15–26, 29–40, 43–53, 59–70, 73–84, 89–100, 103–118, 121, 135–144, 149–164, 169–179, 183–193, 197–206,

D Dark creativity, 2, 18, 70, 77, 186, 189–193, 231, 232, 269, 283–285, 288, 289 Dark patterns, 186–193 Definitions, 9, 22, 43, 47, 65, 75, 121, 122, 124, 149, 160, 173, 186, 199, 201, 212, 214–217, 221, 225, 226, 232, 233, 249–252, 255–265, 270, 273 Development, vii, 6, 38, 49, 50, 60–62, 64–66, 75, 81, 83, 91, 92, 94, 97, 99, 100, 103, 105, 106, 108, 111, 112, 116, 124, 141, 150–154, 156–160, 162, 163, 169, 171, 172, 174, 177, 178, 183, 198, 201, 214, 217, 232–235, 237, 239, 240, 242, 243, 256, 264, 265, 288, 289 Distributed creativity, 94, 139 Dual-processing model, 125 E Ecological systems model, 149, 164 Education, viii, 51, 53, 80, 97–99, 103, 105, 112, 118, 121, 126–128, 130, 149–164, 169–179, 203, 204, 217, 224–226, 232–234, 239, 241, 251, 252, 271

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2024 R. J. Sternberg, S. Karami (eds.), Transformational Creativity, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-51590-3

293

294 Empathy, 44, 45, 53, 79, 83, 103, 105–107, 109–114, 116, 142, 159–161, 203–206, 233 Ethics, 74, 80, 95–97, 100, 142, 171–172, 175, 203–204, 241, 262 Experiential learning, 105, 106, 110, 241 F Fake news, 128–130 Fully transformational creativity, 9, 43, 150, 157, 159, 161, 162, 164, 233 H Hidden creativity, 135–144 Higher education, 37, 205, 231–243 Holistic education, 172, 174–176 I Ideological rigidity, 274–275 Individual, 2–8, 16, 17, 19–22, 26, 30, 32–34, 43–53, 61, 62, 64, 69, 75–79, 81, 83, 93–96, 98, 104, 105, 108–115, 121, 125, 129, 137, 142, 150, 151, 153, 158, 163, 169–172, 174, 175, 177, 178, 183–186, 188, 189, 193, 197–202, 204, 218–220, 222, 225, 226, 232, 235, 240, 241, 246–248, 251, 252, 256, 257, 260, 261, 269, 277, 285, 288 InspirED, 154–156, 163 Intentionality, 49, 104, 170 L Life story, 43–53 M MakeSPACE, 157–164 Malevolent creativity, 74, 92–96, 98, 201–203, 242, 243, 247, 248, 252, 283, 284 Misinformation, 2, 4, 5, 83, 121, 128–130, 191, 232 Mortality, 48, 49, 51, 53 N Need to belong, 274 Nudge, 183–186, 188, 190–192

Index O Other-transformational creativity, 9, 150, 157, 159, 161 P Para-transformational creativity, 25, 284 Personal creativity, 138, 233, 246, 247, 251, 252 Positive creativity, viii, 17, 65, 104, 202, 242, 283, 284 Principled creativity, 30 Problem-based learning (PBL), 127, 241 Problem finding, 32, 77, 113–115, 151, 154, 198, 200, 245, 249–252 Pseudo-transactional creativity, 21–23 Pseudo-transformational creativity, 9, 20, 24–25, 277, 283–284 R Reality capture, 70, 267–278 S Self-transformational creativity, 9, 150, 156, 157, 159–161, 164 Service learning, 53, 103–118, 205–206 Shame, 275 Skills, 4, 6, 32, 35, 45, 61, 64, 65, 76, 77, 82, 83, 91, 94, 103, 105–118, 124, 126, 127, 129, 130, 139, 151–153, 155, 156, 159–161, 163, 197–201, 203–206, 212, 215, 217, 218, 222, 223, 225–227, 232–234, 242, 247, 249, 257, 264 Social innovation, 211–227 Social pressure, 274 T Task motivation, 78 Teacher education, 149, 156–163 Teaching, viii, 1, 2, 6, 29–40, 75, 80–84, 105, 112, 114, 124, 127, 129, 149, 152, 153, 156–163, 175, 197–206, 221, 233, 234, 239, 243, 276 Teaching for creativity programs, 197–206 Technology, 4, 68–69, 74, 83, 84, 90, 103, 105, 112, 121, 154, 170, 173, 184, 187, 191, 201, 216, 231, 234, 251, 261 Time perspective, 50 Tolerances, 91, 157, 250–251

Index Transactional creativity, 8, 9, 15–26, 36, 44, 46–48, 70, 144, 283 Transformational creativity, 1–10, 18–25, 29–40, 43, 62, 75, 91, 103–118, 121, 135, 149–164, 169–179, 186, 197–206, 211, 231–243, 245, 255, 267–278, 283 Transformational knowledge, 110, 113, 116, 118, 122, 130, 154, 156

295 W Welfare, 45, 74, 80, 116, 171, 184, 185, 187, 189, 192, 193, 263 Wisdom, viii, 8, 20, 43–53, 81, 141, 171–172, 175–177, 186, 202, 203, 212, 224–226, 234, 240, 248, 252, 263 Wisdom education, 169–179